Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three, of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Darlington Corporation (Transport, etc.) Bill,

New Shoreham Harbour Bill,

Hartlepool Corporation Bill,

Manchester Ship Canal Bill,

Bradford Corporation Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 29th July, and agreed to.

West Hartlepool Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Victoria Infirmary of Glasgow Act, 1888 (Amendment), Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

SHANGHAI DISTURBANCES (JUDICIAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY).

Mr. FOOT MITCHELL: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has information that the Chinese chamber of commerce at Shanghai has pledged itself to continue the anti-British boycott for a year; and whether, in view of the fact that British trade is being seriously hampered and interfered with and, as a result, our nationals are not obtaining the business which they ordinarily secure, the Government can
expedite the judicial inquiry into the situation in order to arrive at a prompt decision on the Shanghai shootings and controversy?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part of the question, everything possible is being done, and not for commercial reasons only, to expedite the meeting of a judicial commission of inquiry.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Is it intended to summon an international conference to deal with the whole question of extra-territoriality?

Mr. McNEILL: That is quite a different question, and has nothing to do with the inquiry at Shanghai.

CHILD LABOUR REGULATIONS, SHANGHAI.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to give any information bearing upon the question whether the British millowners at Shanghai have agreed to adopt the Regulations of the Child Labour Commission, whether or not these Regulations were adopted in the other factories in Shanghai?

Mr. McNEILL: The Regulations proposed by the Child Labour Commission have not been voluntarily adopted by any of the mills in the International Settlement at Shanghai pending enforcement by bye-law, but the Cotton Millowners' Association, including all British mills, have expressed approval of their main provisions. I am informed that since September, 1923, the British millowners in Shanghai have endeavoured to keep out boys under 10 years and girls under 12 years of age.

Mr. JOHNSTON: How did the Secretary of State come to have such erroneous information in his possession during the recent Debate upon the Chinese situation?

Mr. McNEILL: I think that arose from a confusion in the accounts that came home between the attitude of the mill-owners and their action in voluntarily adopting the Regulations.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ BOUNDARY COMMISSION (EEPORT).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Report of the Mosul Commission will be published?

Mr. McNEILL: It has now been arranged that the Secretariat-General of the League of Nations at Geneva will release the Report for publication as soon as it learns that the copies sent to the Turkish Government have been received at Angora.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCHANT SHIPS IN WAR (ROOT RESOLUTIONS).

Commander BELLAIRS: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the prospects of ratification by the French Government of the Root resolutions, providing for the safety of the passengers and crews of merchant vessels against air, surface, or submarine operations, which was agreed to by M. Briand's delegation at Washington?

Mr. McNEILL: Nothing further has been done in the matter since my reply to the hon. and gallant Member of the 9th June.

Commander BELLAIRS: Does the failure of France to ratify absolve the other Powers from the consequences of their ratification? Do they all have to ratify?

Mr. McNEILL: I think they all have to ratify together.

Commander BELLAIRS: The right hon. Gentleman said the Powers would have to convene a conference to make any remonstrance to France. Has he had any official communication of any remonstrance being addressed to France because of the four years' delay?

Mr. McNEILL: So far as I recollect, there has been no such remonstrance.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can we not have a war with France and have done with in?

Commander BELLAIRS: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the obligations undertaken by the Powers that have ratified the Root Resolutions, agreed to at Washington, are conditional upon their ratification by
all the signatories; and if he has received any official notification of any representations made by the Government of the United States of America to France with regard to the delay in ratifying the Root Resolutions as signed by all the Powers at the Washington Conference?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative and to the second part in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

HIGH COMMISSIONER.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the recently-appointed High Commissioner is proceeding to Egypt; and whether any negotiations have been in progress with the Egyptian Prime Minister while in London regarding the questions still at issue between the British and Egyptian Governments?

Mr. McNEILL: Sir George Lloyd expects to arrive in Egypt in October. The reply to the latter part of the question is in the negative.

Captain CROOKSHANK: In a case like this, are salary and allowances payable on appointment or on arrival?

Mr. McNEILL: I could not say without notice.

ELECTIONS.

Mr. PONSONBY: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Egyptian elections are to be held?

Mr. McNEILL: It is unlikely that the date of the Egyptian elections will be fixed before the promulgation of the new electoral law, which is still under consideration by the Egyptian Government.

Mr. PONSONBY: Was this subject discussed by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister of Egypt in their recent conversation?

Mr. McNEILL: Not so far as I am aware.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (BRITISH DELEGATION).

Mr. PONSONBY: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether
he will inform the House of the composition of the British delegation to the Assembly of the League of Nations in September?

Mr. McNEILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 16th July to the right hon. Member for Aberavon.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROPOSED SECURITY PACT.

Mr. PONSONBY: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the reply of the French Government to the last German Note with regard to the security pact will be issued as a White Paper after it has been despatched; and whether the method of conducting further negotiations by means of a conference is yet contemplated?

Mr. McNEILL: Pending the result of the discussions now in progress regarding the security treaties, no useful purpose would be served at present by giving a definite answer to either part of the hon. Member's question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOROCCO (BRITISH RED CRESCENT SOCIETY).

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the increasing scale of military operations, and particularly aerial bombardment, in Morocco, and the suffering likely to be caused through lack of medical stores, he is now prepared to support the claim of the British Red Crescent Society to be allowed to supply the Riffs with such stores?

Mr. McNEILL: His Majesty's Government are not prepared to intervene in a matter respecting which it is entirely for the Spanish and French Governments to make a decision.

Captain BENIN: What is the status of the Riffs? Have they the status of belligerents?

Mr. McNEILL: No, I think not.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN STATES (DEBTS TO BRITISH SUBJECTS).

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: 15.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs whether, seeing that the British Government under the Treaty of Versailles has been collecting from British subjects moneys owing by them to German citizens and insisting on interest on these debts as from the date upon which they were contracted, he will apply this principle to the debts due by other nationals and Foreign Governments to British subjects and claim on behalf of the latter moneys and interest due to them by the former, thereby placing them in the same favourable position as that occupied by the German creditor in respect of debts owing by British subjects?

Mr. McNEILL: I find it difficult to follow the precise purport of the hon. and gallant Member's question, but the special provisions governing the settlement of pre-War debts laid down in the Treaty of Versailles obviously cannot be applied to pre-War debts, which do not fall under that Treaty.

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, having Government support to the claim of a British subject against the United States Government for deferred initerest?

Mr. McNEILL: I could not answer without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

MALTA NAVAL RESERVE.

Sir GERALD STRICKLAND: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is prepared to assist in giving effect to a promise, conveyed by his predecessor in 1923 to the Parliament of Malta, that the Malta Naval Reserve would be reestablished: and whether he can inform the House of the steps taken towards that end?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in thinking that any such promise was given. I am not in a position to make any statement at the present time as to the establishment of a Malta Naval Reserve.

Sir G. STRICKLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the promise referred to was contained in a despatch from his predecessor, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, read publicly in the Parliament of Malta?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I can find no trace of any promise of that nature having been given. The question, of course, is still open to further consideration.

BATTLESHIPS (UPKEEP COST).

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the annual cost of the upkeep of a battleship of the "Rodney" class, including pay of the personnel, food, stores, overhauling engines, repairs, docking, spares, and share of dockyard charges, etc., to keep her in an efficient state; the cost, approximately, of the oil used by a battleship of the "Rodney" class when in commission and carrying out normal peace duties; and if he will state the annual cost of practice and battle-firing of a battleship of the "Rodney" class?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): The annual cost of upkeep is £432,960, which includes £22,150 for cost of oil fuel and £40,990 for cost of practice firing.

SHIPBUILDING, HARTLEPOOLS.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will send inquiries for cost of building to shipyards in the Hartlepools and the East Coast, in view of the proved fact that in the past private yards can do this work cheaper than and as well as Government dockyards; seeing that certain private yards elsewhere have been found lately to have fixed foreign materials in battleships, will he see that these yards be not invited to tender until the shipyards on the East Coast have been offered some work; and is he aware that the unemployment on the North-East Coast of shipyard workers is the highest in the country, namely, 45 per cent., whereas in Scotland it is 35 per cent., and in the West of England 30 per cent.?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply to his question of 17th June last (OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, Column 479–80). The Admiralty cannot undertake to restrict invitations to tender to any particular district.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Not even when in other districts they have not followed the terms of the contract as to British material?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, I think everyone will agree in a case of that kind the terms are the same to everyone.

Sir W. SUGDEN: When they have not followed the contract terms for British material should they not be penalised for their wrongdoing?

HON. MEMBERS: Names, Names!

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I do not think a statement like that ought to be made unless they are prepared to give the names.

OFFICERS' WIVES (MEDICAL TREATMENT).

Mr. HARRISON: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will arrange for medical advice and treatment to be given to wives of naval officers whenever possible?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The wives of a few naval officers serving in shore establishments and paid out of Vote. 8 may be attended, free of charge, by the naval medical officer of the establishment, provided his duties permit, but I regret that, in view of the urgent need for economy, it is not possible to arrange for the extension of this privilege to the wives of naval officers generally.

Mr. HARRISON: Is this privilege at present extended to the families of naval officers, and in view of the fact that it is extended to the wives of Army officers generally, can he not reconsider the matter?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I am afraid it would cost a considerable amount of money to extend it, and at present we cannot do it even if other Services do it.

MALTA DOCKYARD (WAGES PETITION).

Mr. KELLY: 24.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the reply will be given to the wages petition presented on 17th October, 1924, by the men employed at Malta Dockyard?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I hope very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICERS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE, GOVERNMENT DECISION.

Mr. HARRISON: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a statement upon naval officers' marriage allowances?

Colonel DAY: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what decision has been reached in the matter of the payment of marriage allowances to officers in the Navy?

Major HORE-BELISHA: 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now make an announcement on the subject of marriage allowances?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement with regard to marriage allowances for officers of the Royal Navy?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The Government have made a most careful and prolonged inquiry into the relative position in pay and allowances of all kinds of officers of the three fighting services. They have reached the conclusion that the position of naval officers, whether married or single, taken as a whole, is not inferior to that of officers in the other two services. In these circumstances they consider that no case has been made out for granting the additional allowance.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Can the right hon. Gentleman in these circumstances say why the House of Commons was asked to grant the money for this purpose?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Member will recollect that the money was granted provisionally. There is no difficulty in this matter, because there are many cases where money is not spent even when it has been voted.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: Is it not a fact that naval officers alone amongst the services, either of men or officers, do not draw marriage allowances?

The PRIME MINISTER: To answer that question fully would be entering into Debate. That is a fact; and it is also a fact that at the time when the pay was settled a few years ago all these considerations were taken into account.

Major HORE-BELISHA: May we take it that this question is definitely at an end now?

The PRIME MINISTER: Anyone can raise it on the Adjournment or, if there is time, on the Appropriation Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRUISER CONSTRUCTION.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when It is
anticipated that the cruiser now completing at Devonport will be launched?

Mr. DAVIDSON: A definite date for the launch of "Cornwall" has not yet been fixed, but as at present arranged the vessel will be launched in February, 1926.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when he can say where it is intended to lay down the new cruisers?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot now give a reply to this question, but I hope to be able to give a decision at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH WAR BONDS (BRITISH SUBSCRIBERS).

Sir W. SUGDEN: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the position to-day of negotiations, if any, between himself and the French Government on behalf of those British subscribers to the French Five Per Cent. War Bonds who by reason of the depreciation of the franc find their investments reduced by 80 per cent. of the capital value, and are suffering heavy reduction in interest as well?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewisham on the 20th July and to the hon. Member for Darwen yesterday.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Do we stand exactly as we did at that time, because, if so, virtually there will be a further reduction which will make the security of patriotic British people subscribing to the French War Loan of the value of only 10 per cent. of what they put in?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

RELIEF SCHEMES.

Mr. GROVES: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour the number and the details of schemes for the relief of unemployment sanctioned for the three months ended 31st March, 1925; how many men were engaged under these schemes; and what are the average rates of pay?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): As the answer is necessarily
long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer:

I assume that the hon. Member is referring to cases of direct financial

Department.
Kind of Schemes.
Number Sanctioned.
Estimated Total Coat.





£


Ministry of Transport.
Road and Bridge construction and improvement.
98
1,868,565


Unemployment Grants Committee.
Roads, Sewers, Gas, Water and Electricity Schemes, Work in Recreation Grounds and other works of public utility.
569
5,228,268


Ministry of Agriculture.
Land Drainage Schemes (Improving, Repairing, Cleansing, Main Water Courses) and Water Supply to groups of holdings.
64
56,000


Scottish Board of Agriculture.
Land Drainage, Water Supply and Road Improvement.
366
46,035


Forestry Commission.
Schemes of Afforestation (Planting, Scrub Clearing and Preparation of Ground for Planting.
112
6,204 (Estimated Total Grants).

It should be noted that a number of these schemes will not have commenced until after the 31st March. Particulars of the number of men employed on individual schemes are not available, but, according to returns received, the total numbers of men directly employed on works put in hand with Government assistance for the relief of unemployment on the dates given were as follows:—


31st January, 1925
…
109,399


28th February
…
117,963


28th March
…
117,097

In view of the varying nature and locality of the works I cannot give any average rate of pay.

Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the evidence that unemployment will be acute this winter, the Government will undertake comprehensive national schemes for works of public utility in which skilled as well as unskilled labour will be appropriately employed, such works to be financed nationally and to be administered in local areas or groups of areas by the local authorities under such general control by the Government as may be found desirable; and, to this end, whether he will call conferences of local ^authorities to consider schemes of suitable work?

assistance, and not to such schemes as trade facilities and export credits. During the period, sanction was given by the Departments mentioned to the following numbers of schemes submitted by local authorities and others:—

Mr. BETTERTON: I have been asked to reply. I would refer my Noble Friend to the reply, of which I am sending him a copy, given on 29th July to a similar question by the hon. Member for South-wark (South-East).

EXCHANGES.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the staff at the Leicester Employment Exchange, women's branch, are subjected to frequent and extensive overtime, and that many of them have to work all day by artificial light; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy these conditions?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am aware that the unemployment position in Leicester has caused considerable pressure of work in the women's department of the Exchange during the past few months and that overtime1 has been necessary. The nature of much of the work has prevented its delegation to inexperienced staff, and the pressure has, therefore, fallen mainly on the supervisory staff. This staff has already been strengthened, and if there is any increase in the volume of work, further assistance will be sent. The premises are generally satisfactory, but in one part of the women's room artificial light is unavoidable. The
lighting is by electricity, and I am satisfied that the conditions cannot be regarded as detrimental to the health of the staff.

Mr. TINKER: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state an approximate date when the erection of new premises for the purpose of an Unemployment Exchange at Leigh will be commenced; whether, in view of the inconvenience being caused at the present time both to the staff and to those signing on, he is prepared to empower the manager of the Exchange to engage a schoolroom in the vicinity on days when it is known that large numbers of people will be dealt with; and if he has received a communication from the trades unions in Leigh drawing his attention to the un-suitability of the present premises?

Mr. BETTERTON: Representations as to the inadequacy of the existing Exchange premises at Leigh have been made, and, as I informed the hon. Member on the 22nd July, plans for alternative premises are in preparation. I am afraid I cannot say when it will be possible to begin the new building. I am having further inquiry made as to whether there is need for additional temporary accommodation in the meantime.

Mr. MacROBERT: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the defective accommodation at the Gourock Employment Exchange, where the heating and ventilation are both bad and the light very poor; and whether, having regard to the health of the staff, he can take any steps with a view to improving the existing conditions of work?

Mr. BETTERTON: The Gourock Exchange premises are purely temporary and are used on only four mornings a week. I have no information that the heating and ventilation are unsatisfactory, but immediate inquiries are being made, and any necessary improvements will be carried out. I will communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

Mr. MacROBERT: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Employment Exchange at Renfrew is constructionally very unsuitable for the work transacted in it; and whether, having regard to the health of
the staff, he can take any steps with a view to improving the existing conditions of work?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir. Negotiations for the acquisition of alternative accommodation are already in hand, and will be hastened as much as possible.

BENEFIT (ABUSES).

Colonel Sir ARTHUR H0LBR00K: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to a statement, made by an official of the Ministry of Labour at the Tower Bridge Police Court last week, that a man making £1,000 a year from a business under management could draw unemployment pay if he were a motor driver out of a job; whether he is aware that out-of-work miners in South Wales, while running small farms and keeping live stock, have at the same time been drawing unemployment benefit; and will he take steps for an immediate amendment of the regulations to protect the Unemployment Fund from such abuses?

Mr. COOPER RAWSON: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to a case at the Tower Bridge Police Court on Wednesday last the 29th ultimo, in which a man was prosecuted and sent to prison for false pretences, in that he had been drawing the dole, with allowances for his wife and children, since March last while conducting, at the same time, with his wife, a profitable grocery business, the man having claimed the dole on the ground that he was unable to obtain work as a motor driver, which was his registered occupation when he left the Army in 1921; and whether, in view of the evidence of the official from the Labour Ministry to the effect that the man was entitled to continue to draw the dole if not engaged on his registered occupation, such steps as are necessary may be taken to prevent a continuance of this practice in the future?

Mr. BETTERTON: Certain condensed Press reports of the replies given by an official to the magistrate in the case referred to have given rise to misapprehension. The rule on the subject, as laid down in Section 7 (2) (a) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, is that ordinarily a person following any occupation from which he derives any
remuneration or profit is disqualified for benefit; the only exception is that a person may without being so disqualified continue to carry on a subsidiary employment, outside his ordinary working hours, bringing in not more than a pound a week or 3s. 4d. a day.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Has the Minister been able to find a reply to that part of Question 30 which refers to miners in South Wales keeping farms and drawing unemployment relief 1

Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: It is not true.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: It is very publicly stated in the newspapers. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Daily Mail!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: I would ask hon. Members not to ask questions too lightly on statements which appear in the newspapers.

STATE-AIDED SCHEMES.

Mr. LANSBURY: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons employed on State-aided schemes of work ' on 29th July, 1925?

Mr. BETTERTON: The latest figures available are those for the 27th June, at which date, according to returns received, the number of men directly employed on State-aided schemes of relief work was 100,753. The figures take no account of the employment provided indirectly, e.g., in the preparation and transport of materials, etc.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (ADVERTISEMENTS).

Mr. F. MITCHELL: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that many papers published in agricultural districts now contain advertisements for agricultural workers; whether it is the policy of the local Employment Ex changes to reply to these advertisements offering the services of unemployed men; and, if not, will he say why?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir. Under current instructions Exchanges submit the names of suitable persons on the register of unemployed to employers advertising in the newspapers for labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

INSTRUCTIONAL FACTORIES.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour if it is the intention of the Ministry of Labour to undertake instructional training of 600 fit ex-service men for work in the Colonies, and if new instructional factories are to be equipped, together with hostels, for the purpose at Birmingham and at Clayden, Suffolk; and if, as at least 500 of those men could be taken at once at the Government instructional factory at Saris-bury Court, Hants, with no additional overhead charges, and as that factory is already complete, and in every respect adapted for the purpose, he will consider the advisability of utilising the existing facilities of that factory before incurring increased expenditure?

Mr. BETTERTON: My right hon. Friend proposes to make a statement on this subject this evening.

CASUAL WARD INMATES.

Mr. LANSBURY: 56.
asked the Minister of Health the number of ex-service men and their dependants who were inmates of the casual and tramp wards of England and Wales on the night of 31st July?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. Gentleman did give me the information up to date some months ago; Why should it be impossible to get it now?

Sir K. WOOD: I will inquire. I am informed that my Department has not got it now.

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not mind it not being available to-day, but will not the hon. Gentleman get it for me? It was given to me already from an earlier date.

Sir K. WOOD: I will inquire further.

Mr. LANSBURY: You will have to wake them up.

MENTAL CASES.

Mr. W. BAKER: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether any distinction is made between ex-service men and other patients during their stay in mental hospitals;
whether he will state the average cost of the food supplied to each ex service patient at present in the mental hospitals throughout the country; whether he is aware that bread and margarine are given for breakfast and tea without variation throughout the year in many of these institutions; and whether he will consider the possibility of increasing the standard of comfort of the men who are under the control of his Department?

Sir K. WOOD: "Service" patients are classified in the private class during their stay in mental hospitals, and a weekly allowance of 2s. 6d. is provided to each man for additional comforts. The limited class of ex-service patients for whom the Ministry of Pensions do not accept responsibility are also treated as private patients but receive no weekly allowance. It is not possible to state th.fi average cost of the food supplied to "Service" patients separately from the other patients in the mental hospitals. With regard to the last part of the question, I am informed that since the publication of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Dietaries in Mental Hospitals, the breakfast and tea meals have been considerably varied. I may add that the welfare and comfort of the inmates of mental hospitals are subjects, which are constantly in the minds of the authorities responsible.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEXTILE INDUSTRY DISPUTE, YORKSHIRE.

Mr. FORREST: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make any statement as to the suggestions, unofficial or official, of negotiations to settle the dispute in the heavy textile trade; and whether he has made, or will make, inquiries as to the effect on production of the proposed 5 per cent. reduction?

Mr. BETTERTON: Attempts have been made both by the Minister of Labour and by other persons, and are still being made, to bring together the parties in this dispute, but so far without success. The effect on production of the proposed reduction in wage rates is a matter of argument between the two parties, on which I cannot express an opinion.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it not a fact that the workpeople are quite willing that this
matter should be referred to the Industrial Council? Are we to understand that the obstacle to these negotiations is on the part of the employers, and, in these circumstances, will the hon. Member renew his pressure upon the employers to induce them to agree to the matter being referred to the Industrial Council?

Mr. BETTERTON: I cannot answer definitely the specific point put with regard to the Industrial Council, but the representative of the Ministry is at this moment in Bradford, and I am quite certain—I can say with assurance—that anything he sees can be done in that direction will be done by him. This point will be borne in mind by him.

Mr. SPEAKER: (Later): Does the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) wish to put his private notice question, in view of the answer given to Question No. 39;

Mr. RILEY: Yes, Sir.

Mr. RILEY: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister what steps are being taken, or have been taken, to deal with the dispute in the woollen and worsted trade in. the West Riding of Yorkshire and Lancashire; and whether the Prime Minister, in view of the present deadlock, is prepared to institute an inquiry into the situation or invite the two parties to meet him with a view to finding a basis for settlement?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have been asked to reply. An officer of my Department has gone to Bradford and is in communication with both sides in the dispute in order to ascertain whether a meeting can be arranged. I do not consider that an inquiry would serve any useful purpose at the present moment.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in this case the refusal to go to arbitration is the employers' absolutely? When the workers refuse, great publicity is given to the fact, and could not the Government now say of their own accord—as they have the power to do so—that they will institute an independent inquiry, at least to give some encouragement to those who believe in conciliation?

Mr. BETTERTON: As I have already said, my right hon. Friend does not think
at present the inquiry suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would serve any useful purpose.

Mr. THOMAS: The present dispute has already lasted a week—[HON. MEMBERS: "A fortnight!"]—and it is likely to spread. Surely, if any inquiry is to be held, the sooner it is held the better.

Mr. BETTERTON: My right Ron. Friend had all these considerations in mind in arriving at the conclusion which I have just indicated.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINTCK: When does the Eon. Gentleman consider that an inquiry will serve any useful purpose?

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Has any report been sent from the Ministry's officer stating that he has approached the employers and suggested an inquiry or a conference or any organisation for conciliation, and that the employers have refused whilst the workers have accepted?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have not myself seen such a report, and I do not know whether there is such a report in existence. The officer in question is still there, and therefore a final report has not yet been received.

Mr. THOMAS: Cannot the Government themselves institute an inquiry before this dispute spreads? If the employers refuse to take part, surely the Government have precedents for setting up an inquiry themselves?

Mr. BETTERTON: That is really the same question which the right hon. Gentleman put previously, and the answer is that my right hon. Friend has considered this, and he does not think that an inquiry would serve any useful purpose at the present time.

Mr. WILLIAM GREENWOOD: Will the Government consider bringing forward proposals for compulsory arbitration in these trade disputes?

Mr. BETTERTON: That is an entirely different question, raising very broad issues which cannot be dealt with by question and answer.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: When is the Labour Ministry going to make some contribution to industrial
peace? So far they have only knocked people off unemployment benefit.

Mr. RILEY: Does the Minister appreciate the situation which exists in the West Riding—that there are now over 1,000 mills standing idle, and 200,000 men, women and children involved, and does he recognise that great suffering is likely to occur unless a settlement is arrived at? May I also ask if, in his replies, the hon. Gentleman has borne in mind the fact that his officer has been there for 10 days and that further steps might now be taken.

Mr. BETTERTON: My right hon. Friend is cognisant of the seriousness of the dispute and its consequences, and for that reason he sent the officer up to Bradford, and the officer is there now doing what he can to bring this unfortunate dispute to a close.

Mr. MacDONALD: May we not bring this to a very definite issue? Is the decision of the Minister not to establish a court of inquiry the result of inquiries made by his officer at Bradford to which the. answer from the employers was that they did not want an inquiry?

Mr. BETTERTON: The right hon. Gentleman must not read more into my answer than there is in it. My answer was, "I do not consider that an inquiry would serve any useful purpose at the present moment."

Mr. J. JONES: Does it require a stoppage of the entire industry of the country before the Government take any action? Is it because this industry cannot stop every other industry that the Government are not going to do anything?

Mr. J. HUDSON: What are the grounds upon which the Minister would consider that an inquiry should be held? Why is it at this moment, when a very important section of our trade is involved in a serious dispute, no inquiry can be considered, whilst in another matter an inquiry has been agreed to? What are the conditions which prevent the institution of an inquiry in this case?

Mr. BETTERTON: Conditions obviously vary in different cases, and in the present case, as I have said, my right hon. Friend thinks no useful purpose could be served at the moment by an inquiry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] —

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Because the miners have instilled fear into those in power.

Mr. BETTERTON: —or that an inquiry would be likely to bring any useful results at present.

Mr. MacDOMALD: May we ask whether this matter will not be considered during to-day, so that there might be a chance of a different reply to this question if it is repeated to-morrow?

Mr. BETTERTON: I will certainly go into it, and with your consent, Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. Gentleman cares to put down a private notice question for to-morrow, I am sure my right hon. Friend will be only too ready to answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUXILIARY AIR FORCE, MALTA.

Sir G. STRICKLAND: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the scheme transmitted last year by the Officer Commanding the Air Force in Malta for increasing the Auxiliary Air Force at that base is receiving favourable consideration?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Sir Philip Sassoon): So far as I am aware, the only scheme of this kind is that referred to in my hon. Friend's question of 30th July, and I have nothing to add to the reply which I then gave.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR PERSONS (LEGAL AID).

Dr. SALTER: 41.
asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that at the present time over 400 poor persons' cases, where leave has been given under the Poor Persons Rules and where the reporting solicitor has reported favourably as to each case, are waiting and are unable to be dealt with by the Courts because no conducting solicitor will take them up, on the ground that the poor persons concerned cannot provide the out-of-pocket expenses; and whether there is any method or provision, either in the existing Rules or in the Rules now proposed, whereby a poor person having no means can sue or defend himself in the High Court?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): There are a number of poor persons' cases which have been favourably reported upon but cannot be dealt with at present because the supply of conducting solicitors is insufficient. The difficulty of finding conducting solicitors for these cases is not due, as suggested in the question, to the inability of these persons to find money for out-of-pocket expenses, but to causes set out in the Report of Mr. Justice P. 0. Lawrence's Committee (Command Paper 2358). It is hoped that when the new system proposed by that Committee comes into operation the difficulty will disappear.

Oral Answers to Questions — NECESSITOUS AREAS (GRANTS).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet appointed the departmental committee to inquire into the possibility of finding a satisfactory formula for the basis of grants in aid of rates for necessitous areas where unemployment is abnormal, and, if so, will he state the personnel and the terms of reference?

The PRIME MINISTER: Steps are now being taken to appoint this committee, but I am not yet in a position to announce the personnel and terms of reference.

Mr. THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make an announcement before the House rises?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope so. We are trying now to get the personnel together.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make any statement as to the electrification proposals of the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. This question is still under consideration.

Mr. MORRISON: May I take it that no statement will be made before the House rises?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid it will not be possible before the House rises.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

TEMPORARY SUBVENTION.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on the coal situation will enable that body to inquire into the reasonableness or otherwise of the charges added to the ton by merchants, factors, and agents?

The PRIME MINISTER: The terms of reference will have to be the subject of consultation with the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation, and I can make no statement at present.

Captain GARRO-JONES: In view of the fact that it will be too late to make representatives on this subject when the terms of reference are issued, may I ask whether, whatever the coal merchants or the coal owners say, he will insist that this shall be one of the terms of reference to the Royal Commission in the public interest?

The PRIME MINISTER: All relevant points will be taken into consideration.

Mr. DIXEY: May I take it also that the terms of reference will include reference to the iron and steel trade?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is impossible to say until we have had time to consider the matter.

Captain BENN: Will the House know the terms of reference before it is asked to grant the subsidy?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is clearly impossible..

MINING ROYALTIES.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 53.
asked the Prime Minister what proportion, if any, of the cost of the Government subvention to the coal industry is to be raised by a special tax on mining royalties derived from the output of British coal?

Mr. GUINNESS: It is not proposed to introduce a special tax on mining royalties.

Mr. MARDY JONES: In view of the statement of the Prime Minister that we are to go into the roots of the depression in the coal industry, and that royalties are admitted to be one of the root causes of depression, why cannot the Prime
Minister see his way to place a tax of 50 per cent. on these royalties, so that in five or six years we could secure the money required?

Mr. GUINNESS: It would be quite open to the Commission to consider this matter with all other matters.

Mr. MARDY JONES: The Government have expressed a desire to solve this question, and it is well known that royalties—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]

Captain W. BENN: Do we understand that the Commission will be enabled to consider the continuation of some tax for continuing the subsidy to the industry?

Mr. GUINNESS: That is quite a different question.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Are we to understand that this Commission will have powers to consider the question of a subsidy, and how the money for the subsidy should be raised?

Mr. GUINNESS: No; the question referred to mining royalties and the Commission can naturally consider any of these questions.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it not a fact that a majority of Members of the Tory-party have been threatening to go on strike on this particular question.?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

VICTORIA STATION.

Sir G. STRICKLAND: 59.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the extent to which confusion and overcrowding prevailed last Saturday at Victoria Station; and whether he has received a report on the matter?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I believe that the conditions at Victoria and at other railway stations were quite abnormal on Saturday last, but I have no special information in the matter. If my hon. Friend has any particular suggestions or criticisms, I shall be glad to communicate with the railway company in the matter.

SPEED LIMIT.

Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in the outlying parts in the county of Surrey there were no prosecutions of public vehicles for exceeding the speed limit during the first three months of this year, whereas there were 466 prosecutions of owners of light cars; and whether offences against the law as to speed limit are confined to vehicles other than public vehicles plying for hire?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): Yes, Sir; the figures quoted are from a recent Home Office return, but the explanation is certainly not that suggested in the last part of the question. Public vehicles plying for hire are, like other vehicles, subject to the general law.

RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION.

Mr. HANNON: 60.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can make any statement on the progress which has been achieved in the past six months in the development of railway electrification with the object of reducing unemployment; whether he has received a series of Reports, prepared by experts, all of which tend to prove that the increase of railway transport facilities through electrification would be economically advantageous to the railways themselves and a great convenience to the travelling public, while providing orders for the electrical industry which is now suffering from foreign competition; and whether he is aware that the schemes of electrification which are regarded as necessary would, if proceeded with, provide employment for upwards of 20,000 skilled artisans during the next few years?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware that the views referred to in this question are widely held by persons whose opinion is entitled to respect. So far as the general question of railway electrification is concerned, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply, of which I am sending him a copy, to a question on the subject asked on 30th June by the hon. Member for Penistone, and to the remarks I made when the Ministry of Transport Vote was under discussion on the 21st May, since which date electrical working has been started on several sections of the Southern Railway.

Mr. HANNON: May I ask whether the Government is not really keeping treating this matter too lightly, and whether they are using their influence with the railway companies to encourage electrification and thus to provide employment for the skilled artisans who are now leaving the country?

Colonel ASHLEY: We are continuing to impress on the companies that electrification will be a desirable thing, and I hope that when the Government proposals with regard to electrification become law they may increase the supply and distribution of electricity, and thereby improve the chances of electrification for the companies.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate to the House what he is doing with the railway companies?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: When is the Department going to take into consideration the electrification of the underground railway system in and around the West of Scot-land?

Mr. R. MORRISON: May I ask whether the Southern Railway Company is the only company which has recently made decisions to electrify parts of its line, and whether any other company has come to any such decision?

Colonel ASHLEY: Not that I know.

Sir J. NALL: May I ask whether there is any reason to suppose that the electrification of railways is delayed by any question affecting the supply of current?

Colonel ASHLEY: That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that last May a scheme was promised by the Government, and that a scheme was then before the Cabinet?

Colonel ASHLEY: Surely the hon. Member will agree that it is much better to have a well thought out scheme.

Mr. THOMAS: May we take it that on all these matters the Government's policy is now to wait for "a well thought out scheme"?

Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, it is better. The Government are hastening by going slowly.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is it not a fact that the companies promised Mr. Bonar Law in 1922 that they would prepare schemes for electrification, in order to relieve unemployment in the winter of 1922–23?

Oral Answers to Questions — TONNAGE MEASUREMENT (DIESEL MACHINERY)

Commander BELLAIRS: 64.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether evidence has been submitted to him showing that the present tonnage measurements tend to discourage the use of Diesel machinery through the increased cargo space being to a large extent neutralised by increased tonnage dues; and whether he proposes to take any action to meet this objection?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): The suggestion made in the Question has been put forward on more than one occasion, and has been examined by the Board of Trade. The conclusion come to was that there is no evidence that the tonnage measurement rules discourage the use of internal combustion engines, and the probability is that a comprehensive revision of those rules would produce a result which on balance would be lees favourable to that type of engine.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF HEALTH SCOTLAND (MEDICAL OFFICER).

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: 65.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if a medical officer has recently been, or is being, appointed by the Board of Health; what salary was offered; and whether or not the vacancy was advertised?

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): No appointment has recently been made to the medical staff of the Board of Health. They have, however, under consideration the question of filling a vacancy caused by the death of one of their medical officers, together with the appointment of an additional district medical officer. When a decision has been reached these vacancies will be advertised in accordance with the usual practice, and all necessary particulars will be available to intending applicants.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCHISE (WIDOWS).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 68.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the introduction of legislation to amend the law by which widows are disfranchised for six months after the death of their husbands?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is by no means clear that the law is as stated in the question, but the point will be considered when the general question of the franchise is taken up.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 53 widows in my division who are entitled to the franchise have been excluded?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am very sorry. The question of franchise will probably be considered next year, and I will see that the point is considered by whatever committee is set up.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIQUOR TRAFFIC, CARLISLE.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 69.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that an application granted by the local licensing magistrates for a temporary licence for the supply of refreshments on the occasion of an agricultural show at Longtown, in the Carlisle area, was vetoed by the Home Office; and whether he will state the reason for this?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir. I recently refused an application for my consent to supply intoxicating liquor at the weekly cattle auctions at Longtown because, if there is a genuine public demand for such facilities, I thought that the supply ought to be undertaken by the State Management. Pending the result of the inquiry which has been instituted into the State Management Scheme, I cannot interfere with the existing arrangements.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: Are not the local licensing magistrates the licensing authority in the controlled area?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, but the point is that in the controlled area I am responsible for the supply of intoxicating liquor. If there is a demand the State-managed organisation there would apply to the local magistrates to supply the demand which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that within the last few weeks a beer house has been converted into spirit house without any reference to the licensing authority; and does he approve of that?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My hon. and gallant Friend must give me a little notice. I cannot carry all the details of State management in my mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 70.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the present condition of the negotiations with France for the funding of her debt of £620,000,000 to this country?

Captain BOURNE: 73.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to make any statement with regard to the recent negotiations with the French Government over the question of their debt to this country?

Mr. GUINNESS: Official negotiations in regard to the French war debt to this country were commenced on 27th July. After a full exchange of views, the French experts returned to Paris to consult their Government, and I presume that the negotiations will be resumed in due course. I think it would be clearly undesirable for me to make any further statement at the present stage. His Majesty's Government feel convinced that the time has come when this question should be brought to a conclusion.

Captain GARRO-JONES: In view of the great candour which French politicians and the French Press display in discussing this subject, is there any great harm in telling the House what is the maximum amount which so far has been offered by France in this matter?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think that it would be most inadvisable.

Captain O'CONNOR: As there is a great deal of misapprehension in the French Press, is it possible to say whether there has been any acrimonious breaking off of the negotiations?

Mr. GUINNESS: There has been nothing of the kind.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 71.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any negotiations are afoot with Italy on the subject of her debt of £550,000,000 to this country?

Mr. GUINNESS: A preliminary exchange of views has taken place between the British and Italian Governments in regard to the settlement of the Italian debt to this country, and I understand that the Italian Government is at present engaged in framing proposals on the subject.

Captain GARRO-JONES: In view of the fact that these negotiations seem to be in the preliminary stage both in France and Italy, is it not time for something to be done to bring them to a conclusion? They have been going on for many years now?

Sir G. STRICKLAND: Has any Ministry authority to negotiate the remission of millions without the authority of Parliament?

Sir W. SUGDEN: 72.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is now taking, and the result of his efforts to date, to obtain moneys due to the British Exchequer from Belgium, France, Italy, and the other Allies in respect to War loans from Britain to them; and if our claim to equal treatment with the United States of America in the matter of payment is being duly observed or, at any rate, in principle accepted, by all of them?

Mr. GUINNESS: As regards France and Italy, I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies which I have just given to the hon. and gallant Members for South Hackney and Oxford City. The War Debt of Belgium was taken over by Germany under Article 232 of the Treaty of Versailles, and the service of their debt is provided for by a charge on the Dawes Annuities. As regards the other Allies, I have at present nothing to add to the reply which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the hon. Member for Reading on the 7th July. As regards the second part of the question, replies have not yet been received from all the Governments to which the British Note of 26th June was addressed, but I have no reason to suppose that any of the Governments concerned will raise any difficulty in regard to the principle
referred to, which has been adopted by His Majesty's Government as a fundamental basis for any settlement of these war debts.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is it not a fact that France has within the last month made a payment of over £2,000,000 to the United States in respect of war debts?

Mr. GUINNESS: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not possible for some official to be made responsible for the collection of these debts?

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.

EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN.

Major CLIFTON BROWN: 74.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Re-organisation Report of the National Whitley Council is still operative, and, if so, what steps have been or will be taken by the Treasury in connection with the work arising from the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill to carry out the recommendations of paragraph 9, that it shall be the duty of Departments under the general guidance of the Treasury to see that women shall be available for employment on the same work as men within the several classes, and that women are given the widest opportunities of proving their administrative capacity?

Mr. GUINNESS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The question of the appointment of staff for work arising out of the Widows', Etc., Contributory Pensions Bill is primarily a matter for the Minister of Health, and in this connection I would refer to the reply given by the Minister to the hon. and gallant Member on the 26th May last.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE FACILITIES ACT (BEARD-MORE TAXIMETER CAB COMPANY).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 75.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the £350,000 recently guaranteed to the Beardmore Taximeter Cab Company, Limited, under the Trade Facilities Acts is for the purpose of enabling this company to act as cab hirers or to sell cabs to owner-drivers on the hire-purchase
system; and will he say what is the connection between this company and the firm of Beardmore (Paisley), Limited, builders of the cabs?

Mr. GUINNESS: The purpose of this guarantee is to enable the Beardmore Taxicab Company, Limited, to sell cabs to owner-drivers on the hire purchase, system. The share capital of the company will be held by William Beardmore and Company, Limited, who also own all the shares of Beardmore (Paisley), Limited.

Mr. HANNON: Is it a fact that there is a considerable amount of employment provided in making these taxi-cabs?

Mr. GUINNESS: Certainly. The alternative is that the contract would have gone abroad.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE (for Mr. RUNCIMAN): 76.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury consent to the guarantee under the Trades Facilities Act for a loan of £350,000 to the Beardmore Company was given before or after 17th June, 1925, when the Two-seater Taxi-cab Committee Report was signed and presented to the Home Office; whether before promising their guarantee the Treasury were aware of the finding of the Two-seater Taxi-cab Committee; and whether the existing and competing taxi-cab companies are to be given an equal chance of replacing worn-out cabs, as in the case of the Beard more Company, by the assistance of trades facilities guarantees?

Mr. GUINNESS: The Treasury agreed to give this guarantee on the 20th May last: neither they nor the Trade Facilities Act Advisory Committee were aware of the Taxi-cab Committee Report, but they were of the general possibility of two-seater taxi-cab development. It is open to any other company to make application for a guarantee for a similar purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLOGNE EVACUATION.

Major HORE-BELISHA (for Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY): 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further statement to make on the evacuation of the Cologne area by His Majesty's troops?

Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SYRIA.

Major HORE-BELISHA (for Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY): 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any of His Majesty's forces, or the forces of the King of Iraq, are involved in any way in the fighting in Syria between the French troops and the Druses or other native tribes?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY COMMISSIONERS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 43.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what is the expenditure involved in the transfer of the Electricity Commissioners to Savoy Court from Gwydyr House, and the use of the last-named premises for the Air Force; and why it was not possible at a time when national economy is vital to avoid this change?

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: (for
The total expenditure involved in the transfer of the Electricity Commissioners from Gwydyr House to Savoy Court and the use of Gwydyr House for the Air Ministry, including the removal of staff of the Ministry of Agriculture, who were also housed in Gwydyr House, is estimated at £7,320. The removal was necessary in the interests of more effective co-ordination between the Air Ministry on the one hand and the other Service departments and the Committee of Imperial Defence on the other. I may add that the transfer of a portion of the staff to Gwydyr House has avoided the necessity of leasing additional accommodation elsewhere and has also enabled the Department to find accommodation in Kingsway for certain branches which had hitherto occupied outside linings.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government is considering plans for the erection of a gigantic new building to house the Air Ministry in Whitehall Gardens?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is quite a different question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA (TRANSPORT AND COTTON GROWING).

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN (for Colonel DAY): 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the submissions made by the Committee on Industry and Trade, appointed to inquire into the conditions and prospects of British industry and commerce in so far as transport development and cotton growing in East Africa are concerned, have been considered; and whether it is proposed that such submissions should be carried into effect?

The PRIME MINISTER: As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, the submissions of the Committee on Industry and Trade are in general terms; and before they could be carried into effect, specific proposals must be framed with a view to consideration on their merits as practical contributions to the solution of the transport problem in East Africa. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has this matter now before him.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: May I ask whether, in considering this question, it will be appreciated that it is intimately bound up with employment in Lancashire?

The PRIME MINISTER: Lancashire has not failed to notify me of that fact.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEPNEY UNION (HOSPITAL MATRON).

Mr. GERALD HURST: 55.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the guardians of the Stepney Union are inviting applications for the post of hospital matron and insisting as a condition of appointment that the matron must be a member of a trade union; that none of the nursing associations of repute are trade unions; and that no trade union is appropriate to the profession: and if he will take action in this matter?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend's attention has not previously been called to this matter. So far as he is aware the guardians are not exceeding their legal powers and he is, therefore, afraid that the matter is not one in which he can intervene.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFORESTATION.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 57.
asked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, how many acres of derelict woodland there are in Great Britain and Wales which are capable of being replanted?

Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER (for the FORESTRY COMMISSIONERS): The Commissioners are collecting the required information in the course of the Survey of Woodlands, which it is hoped to complete within a year. Meanwhile I regret to say the information is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADULT EDUCATION.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 62.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether any of the recommendations of the Adult Education Committee's Report (Ministry of Reconstruction, 1920) have been put into effect; and, if so, which?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): The Report contains over TO recommendations, many of which relate to matters which are not primarily for my Department. So far as the Board are concerned, effect has been given to a number of the recommendations in some instances in a partial or modified form; but my right hon. Friend is afraid it is not possible, within the limits of an answer to a question, to go into details.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEVERN POWER SCHEME.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 63.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made with the inquiry respecting the Severn power scheme and when he expects to issue a Report as to the practicability of such a scheme; whether he will give the amount already expended upon the inquiry; and what he estimates will be the total cost of the inquiry when the Report is completed?

Duchess of ATHOLL (for Lord Eustace Percy): I have been asked to reply to this question. The Committee appointed by the Lord President of the Council to inquire into the feasibility of the Severn tidal power scheme has submitted a Report which is now receiving
the consideration of the Government. The amount expended upon the inquiry up to date is £2,562. Should the Government decide to proceed with the inquiry, it is estimated that the total cost of the complete inquiry would be from £70,000 to £90,000.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the Department aware that they could have saved the whole of this money by consulting local authorities on the scheme; and that the local authorities would have told them that the scheme was totally impracticable?

Oral Answers to Questions — PETTY SESSIONAL COURTS (FINES).

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN (for Colonel DAY): 67.
asked the Home Secretary whether the recent circular from his Department, tightening up the credit period for the payment of fines inflicted at Petty Sessional Courts, has resulted in any increase in the number of persons committed to prison for the nonpayment of fines; and, if so, will he, in consideration of the ill-effect of prison commitments upon persons convicted for petty offences, withdraw the circular?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I presume the hon. Member is referring to the circular of 27th January last, but, if so, he has misunderstood the object and effect of that circular. The Home Secretary is most anxious to reduce committals to prison in default of payment of fines, and the object of the circular in question was to improve the working of the system under which time is allowed for payment of fines.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA (LAND SETTLEMENT).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 78.
asked the Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs what is the intention of the Government with regard to the granting of land to settlers or others in Tanganyika?

Captain HACKING (for Mr. AMERY): I have been asked to reply. The Government of Tanganyika territory is at present investigating the Iringa and Rung we districts to ascertain what land is peculiarly suitable for European settlement. I may observe that the population of these districts is about 4½ and 19 to the square mile, respectively. Grants of land are not permissible under the
Land Ordinance of 1923, but rights of occupancy are obtainable on lease provided that the interests of the natives are fully protected.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business and on any Private Business set

down for consideration at a quarter-past Eight of the Clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and that, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 8, any such Private Business may be taken after half-past Nine of the Clock." — [The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 100.

Division No. 353.]
AYES.
[3.40 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dawson, Sir Philip
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Albery, Irving James
Dixey, A. C.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L' pool, W. Derby)
Drewe, C.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Lumley, L. R.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Elveden, Viscount
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Atholl, Duchess of
England, Colonel A.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston. S.-M.)
McDonnell Colonel Hon. Angus


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Everard, W. Lindsay
McLean, Major A.


Balniel, Lord
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Beamish, Captain T. p. H.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Fielden, E. B.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Bennett, A. J.
Fleming, D. P.
Malone, Major P. B.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Forestier -Walker, Sir L.
Margesson, Captain D.


Berry, Sir George
Forrest, W.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Betterton, Henry B.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Meyer, Sir Frank


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Gates, Percy
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Blundell, F. N.
Grant, J. A.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Gretton, Colonel John
Moore-Brabazon Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Brass, Captain W.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Briggs, J. Harold
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Murchison, C. K.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Neville, R. J.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastb'rne)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brown, Maj. D.C. (N' th 'l' d., Hexham)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Harland, A.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Bullock, Captain M.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir
Alan Hartington, Marquess of
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Burman, J. B.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nuttall, Ellis


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Haslam, Henry C.
Oakley, T.


Campbell, E. T.
Hawke, John Anthony
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Cassels, J. D.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Oman. Sir Charles William C.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Pennefather, Sir John


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Pilcher, G.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Chapman, Sir S.
Hilton, Cecil
Preston, William


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Radford, E. A.


Clarry, Reginald George
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Raine, W.


Clayton, G. C.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Ramsden, E.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Couper, J. B.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Remer, J. R.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Richardson Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crook, C. W.
Hurd, Percy A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jacob, A. E.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jephcott, A. R.
Sandon, Lord


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Kinloch-Cook, Sir Clement
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Skelton, A. N.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen South)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Smithers, Waldron
Tinne, J. A.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Sprot, Sir Alexander
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Strickland, Sir Gerald
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)



Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Watts, Dr. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wiggins, William Martin
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry Barnston.


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Rose, Frank H.


Ammon, Charles George
Hayes, John Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sexton, James


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, Waiter
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Hudders field)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snell, Harry


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (Wast Ham, Silvertown)
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Clowes, S.
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kirkwood, D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lansbury, George
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities
Lee, F.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Dalton, Hugh
Livingstone, A. M.
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Viant, S. P.


Dennison, R.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gosling, Harry
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Greenall, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Murnin, H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Groves, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben
Wright, W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.



Harris, Percy A.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—




Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Warne.


Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.

HOUSING OF MINERS BILL,

"to make further provision with respect to the housing of persons employed in or about mines, and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. GEORGE HALL; supported by Mr. David Grenfell, Mr. Stephen Walsh, Mr. Hartshorn, Mr. Barker, Mr. William Adamson, Mr. Cape, Mr. John, and Mr. Jenkins: to be read a Second time upon Monday, 16th November, and to be printed. [Bill 256.]

ESTIMATES.

Second Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Second Report from the Select Committee, brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Seeds Act (1920) Amendment Bill,

Unemployment Insurance Bill, without Amendment.

Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill,

Walsall Corporation Bill,

Wolverhampton Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to,

Colonial Bank Bill [Lords'],

Leek Urban District Council Water Bill [Lords],

Ipswich Corporation Bill [Lords],

Scarborough Corporation Bill [Lords],

Mansfield Corporation Bill [Lords],

Mid-Glamorgan Water Board Bill [Lords],

London, Midland and Scottish Railway Bill [Lords],

Uckfield Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords],

Nottingham Corporation Bill [Lords],

Boothferry Bridge Bill [Lords],

West Ham Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Public Health Bill,

That they do not insist on their Amendment to the Public Health Bill to which this House hath disagreed.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT.

Mr. CLYNES: This is the last opportunity, so far as this period of the year is concerned, for returning to the question which has been prominent in the mind of the House of Commons and of the country for several years past. The Government are strong in numbers, but, in regard to the handling of this question, wholly weak and ineffective. When we have pressed for answers to numerous questions which we have submitted, the Government have shown a great deal of strength in an obstinate refusal to reply to them. But the fact is, that everything else, in our domestic life, in our legislation, in our general Parliamentary service, depends upon the way in which this question is to be handled, ft relates intimately to all matters of internal industrial peace. It goes far to determine what can be done on housing problems, on questions of health, and matters as to taxation and finance, and, unless much more is done to relieve the distress due to unemployment, to put men to useful work, the absence of that work will continue to frustrate every effort which Parliament may pursue, and I think we are entitled to say to the country and to the House, that as all our proposals have been rejected, whether they were submitted in the form of Bills, Resolutions, or in any other way, it is our right to say to those who reject our proposals, that the obligation is upon them to submit schemes and proposals which will deal with the problem.
Yesterday, figures were announced showing the latest position, so far as figures can express the extent of unemployment; but when figures are being used, it should be remembered that they do not state fully the extent of unemployment, and often, when we listen to the figures being repeated, we forget the other great aspect of this subject—namely, the
appalling length of time which a very large number of the people covered by these figures have remained wholly unemployed, and the longer men are out of work, the deeper becomes their individual distress and difficulty; indeed, it may be said, the greater becomes their difficulty in finding employment, and, in addition, the very fact of their idleness adds to the total sum of loss which the country must endure. 1,221,912 people are at this moment registered as being wholly unemployed, and of that number 127,644 are not receiving any benefit at all. Therefore, during Question Time to-day it was fitting that the noble Lord opposite should remind the House that this Government has done little or nothing in relation to this great problem, beyond that of robbing them of their benefit, and taking the pay to which they were entitled. The Government has less excuse than other Governments have had in relation to this problem, because of the fact that in this year of 1925 there has not been, until this past week or so, any serious industrial dispute such as that which now, unfortunately, exists in certain of the Yorkshire towns.
Allowing for the fact that, at any rate for the time being, a great threatened stoppage—a stoppage not due to the initiative, or any new demands of the miners themselves—allowing for the fact that the mining stoppage has been averted, until this dispute in the woollen industry occurred, 1925 might be marked down as, happily, a year of unusual industrial peace, and in that period of industrial peace the Government might-very well have applied its mind more constantly than other Governments have been able to do to finding a way out of the great difficulties which now beset us. When we think of industrial disputes, we are too apt to forget how industriously trade union officials and the whole organisation of the trade union movement continue to labour to prevent stoppages, and to compose differences which inevitably arise. Indeed, the greatest industrial peace agents to be found in Britain are to be found amongst the ranks of the trade union leaders.
I would like, at the outset, to address a few definite questions to my right hon. Friend on what are, I think, points much more important than points of detail. I intended to begin by referring to elec-
trical development, but now I need not press that, because only a, few moments ago, in answer to a question on the Paper, the Prime Minister informed the House that he had no announcement to make, no news of any kind to give us as to whether the efforts of the Government had been carried a stage further or not. So now for months and months—indeed, since the beginning of this new Parliament—though it is assumed that the Government have been considering what they are going to do on this question, as yet they have reached no conclusion. Have there been any new developments or new undertakings with regard to the work of the Unemployed Grants Committee? What fresh proposals, if any, have the Government to make on the subject of road development? Have the Government any proposals on afforestation and land reclamation? These are all points which should be intimate to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, and on which, I hope, this afternoon he will be able to say something.
4.0 P.M.
On Monday, we had in this House a statement from the Minister of Agriculture. How close the relationship may be between the Ministers of Labour and Agriculture I do not know, but I think it ought to be close, because, clearly, in face of this continued failure of our country to secure that margin of overseas trade which would greatly diminish our unemployed ranks, we must turn our attention more to our internal resources, and see whether more cannot be done in the way of land labour in Britain. The Minister of Agriculture gave us some figures, with the assurance that, on the whole, the enterprise of his Department in this regard had been a success, and that the failures were comparatively few. If that be so, I venture to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should take a deeper and more consistent interest in this matter in connection with the Minister of Agriculture than so far he has done. The Minister of Agriculture, by the way, referred to the effective manner in which co-operative service is conducted in the cultivation of the soil, but, so far as I could gather from a close examination of his speech, he rather told us what, should be done in this country on the basis of what has been done in other countries, than what his Department intend to do, or intend to suggest, in regard to land
cultivation. Instead of telling us what ought or should be done, announcements should be made more freely to this House of what actually the Government have done in settling the lines of policy on all these questions. To my questions, I would add this further one: Has the Civil Research Committee yet come to any conclusions regarding the iron and steel industry, and, if so, what are those conclusions? If conclusions have not been reached, can we be told to-day when some result may be expected in the way of guidance or decision from that body?
We have had from the beginning of this Session, and even before Parliament assembled, the most solemn and explicit assurances that all these questions would be immediately attended to and that effective action would be taken upon them. I want, if I may, this afternoon to put my right hon. Friend on his honour in regard to these assurances. We had definite promises in the King's Speech of what would be done this Session. The King's Speech for 1925 was a document relating to this Session of 1925. Let me, therefore, read to the House the declaration in that Speech on these questions regarding which I have put some interrogatories to the Minister:
The various schemes which have already been initiated for the relief of unemployment, including those relating to juvenile unemployment, will be examined with great care, and you will be asked to make provision for the continuance and extension of all such measures as are likely to alleviate the present distresses.
I suggest that the Minister has no record, and I fear that this afternoon he cannot produce any record, of action, of results, of undertakings, or attempts to give effect to these numerous assurances submitted to the House solemnly in the form of the King's Speech. I think the right hon. Gentleman has consoled himself somewhat by saying to the House that in the course of the last Election he did not declare that there was a solution of this problem or that he could find one. There is, after all, on this subject, as well as on others, the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility, and I ask my right hon. Friend to say whether, if his colleagues can do nothing to fulfil their word, he is going to leave them? Is their failure in any sense to keep faith with such definite and repeated assurances a good enough
reason for him to resign from a job in which clearly he cannot make good at all? I do not know whether he has specially busied himself in the way of Cabinet action, but we are entitled to be told, and the country on this matter should know, whether he has been assisted by his colleagues, or whether he has been ignored. We are entitled to be taken into the confidence of the Minister in order that we may see whether there was any meaning or any policy behind the solemn assurances, or whether they were merely given out in the hope that they might be forgotten, and in order that for the time being the unemployed might be a little more reassured.
It is not that we are lacking in sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman in relation to his task. It is not too much to say that, with his known sympathies for the people, and his great knowledge of these economic and industrial questions, he must by this time have realised what an immense task he has undertaken. But he, as other Ministers, must be judged by results. It is, therefore, our right to demand that some evidence of results should be adduced, or that he should submit to such criticism or denunciation as we are entitled to offer. In one respect, I think the right hon. Gentleman must suffer our censure. I recall with great disappointment his unrestrained resistence to any offer that was made to give Parliamentary shape and form to proposals submitted to improve and increase our trade with Russia. I think that he, of all Ministers and members of the Government, should be the very last to say anything or to do anything that would in the slightest way restrict or diminish tendencies to expand trade with Russia. On the contrary, he, above all Ministers, should be the first to lead the way towards better commercial and industrial relations between Russia and ourselves. So far as Russia has been able to do trade with British manufacturers and business men, she has kept her word and paid her bills, and I would like to read in that relation the statement made by Mr. Rakovsky at a gathering of business men held at the end of last year, in which he drew attention to the manner in which this country had kept her bargains, and paid her way in all her undertakings. At that gathering Mr. Rakovsky said:
You who have done business with us during the last four years, can bear witness to the fact that the Soviet economic organisations have always carried out loyally and punctually all obligations incurred by them in their dealings with British industrialists. We have been absolutely scrupulous in all our dealings. None of you here can deny what I say.
I think, therefore, it is clear that present and past experience, particularly experience of the last 18 months, has proved that we can with safety enter into arrangements with Russia without probably involving us in any cost or expense whatever, and thus bring to many of our British workshops the orders of which they are dearly in need. I repeat that it is the special business of the Minister of Labour to argue with his colleagues in order that the bitter frame of mind which many of them have fomented between Russia and this country should be diminished or removed, and that greater business should be done between these two people.
Now, to my questions I would add another. We have heard much in our discussions in this House of the desirability of closer commercial and trading relations between this Mother Country and the Dominions. Yet the Government proposals, under that head, to increase trade with the Dominions have been insignificant, if not contemptible. They know that they must make proposals within what I would term the likelihood of approval on the part of public opinion in this country. Outside all controversial opinion as to preferential rates and the application or operation of tariffs, there is a wide field left entirely untouched by the present Government. The Government talk vaguely of Imperial development. I ask what is meant by that? I ask what has been done under that head? Is there anything decided yet, especially in regard to places other than the Dominions? Is there any decision regarding the £10,000,000 referred to in relation to East Africa? The urgency of this question was shown in the course of Question Time to-day, and in the course of a meeting of Lancashire Unionist Members held within the House of Commons only yesterday afternoon. I would like to draw attention to the resolution passed by that body of Lancashire Unionist Members. In that long resolution my right hon. Friend will find an implied
censure of the Government for having failed so far to assist under this head. The resolution points out the great danger there is of a permanent shortage in the raw material of the great cotton industry of Lancashire, and concludes with this statement:
This Committee draws attention to the primary necessity of more and improved transport services in East Africa, where lack of sufficient transport is a serious impediment to the development of cotton production.
I am convinced that the great cotton trade of Lancashire cannot raise its head to its previous level until there is a more abundant supply, at a cheap rate, of raw material. The world is a great consumer of the finished product, but that product must be sold within the world's capacity to buy, and this is perhaps one of the most urgent lines of action to which the Government could apply their minds. In so applying their minds, they would find that so far as there was criticism from this side of the House it would be helpful and constructive. We would, of course, resist any tendency to slave or indentured labour of any kind. I do not imply that that is behind the mind of the Government, but we had better forewarn them in relation to any of their future proposals. But in those areas of Africa first-class opportunities are offered for cotton growing, and the Government may there find their chance, provided the necessary financial help is forthcoming, of assisting to its feet again what is perhaps the second great industry in Britain, viewed from the standpoint of the number of people employed and the financial interests involved.
We can never deal with these unemployment problems without saying a great deal as to export trade and foreign markets. But, after all, our greatest market is and must be our own market. We are, after all, the greatest consumers of our own product. Yet, in face of that fact, I allege that the Government have encouraged, if not actually instigated, a policy which has tended to lower the buying power of the people of this country. I do not allege that the statements recently attributed to the Prime Minister have been accurately quoted. I do not know. We understand that they were statements made under those conditions of confidence where perhaps there is a greater freedom of expression than would
otherwise be the case. But I say to the Prime Minister that, however his statements may be construed, however fair and generous we may try to be in reading even in the newspapers to-day the correction of what has been alleged against him, that statement of the right hon. Gentleman to-day must leave a sense of the greatest apprehension in the minds of the masses of the workers of this country. We have committed a great act of folly in having gone the opposite way in our tendency to help the great internal market to that of the United States, where the direction is that of rather higher wages, and not lower wages as in this country. The Prime Minister, speaking for his Government, has sought a way out of his embarrassment by alleging that he never said there was a remedy for unemployment. The Prime Minister is an honest man. We want to do no more than to take him at his word. I want, therefore, to quote his words. So far as I understand plain language I say frankly that the Prime Minister is not keeping faith with his language.
The last Labour Government had not been in office for half the number of weeks that this Government has been in office months before the Prime Minister alleged that unemployment would break any Government that failed to deal with it. Is there in that no implication, no assurance, that, given a change in the officers, the problem would not be dealt with? I repeat the statement of the Noble Lord this afternoon that there is no record of action done in reference to the unemployed except the record of having robbed many of them of their rights. It was during the General Election campaign that the present Prime Minister declared that the Labour Government had shaken that confidence in commercial circles which was essential to the trade and prosperity. That was not a correct statement. Confidence had been increased by the policy of the Labour Government. Clearly, confidence has been diminished by the policy of the present Government. Confidence has been clearly lowered by the policy of the present Ministry. Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour to inquire from the present Prime Minister what was the meaning of this statement, made by that right hon. Gentleman on 20th October last, at Southend, when the election campaign
had just got into its swing. The Prime Minister then said:
We will press on with such works of local utility as may be possible to absorb at least a part of the unemployed.
Where have the Government pressed on with works of utility to absorb the unemployed? Why, this afternoon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour gave an answer to a question showing that at present only something more than 100,000 men were engaged in connection with all the schemes, of any kind, which are being carried on because of Government assistance. I venture this suggestion, that the number revealed in the reply given to-day of men employed is actually less than the total number at work at the time when the present Prime Minister made his statement last year.
The most extraordinary feature of the present Government, said the Prime Minister on 26th July last year, at Manchester:
The most extraordinary feature of the present Government"—
referring, of course, to the Labour Government—
is that not only have they done nothing to reduce unemployment, but they have made a point of going out of their way to do even-thing they can to increase it.
I submit that language of that kind was actually undeserved by the late Government. Whatever may be felt to-day as to our incompetence, whatever the opinion may be, we clearly were not such fools as to go out of our way to do everything we could to increase unemployment. In face of those statements used against us at that time, we are doubly entitled now, after this great spell of power by one of the strongest Governments of modern times, to have some evidence of the cure of the evils to which I have referred.
Let me close my remarks on the statement of the Prime Minister and on this subject by referring to his speech in this House on 29th June, a speech in which I venture to say he referred to every relevant topic except the topic of what the Government is going to do for unemployment, though that speech, as hon. Members will recall, was understood to be entirely on that issue. The Prime Minister said:
I am taking the House of Commons, as I think the Leader of the House should,
entirely into my confidence. I do not say that any of these things which I have mentioned are practicable or beneficial. I say that the Government are going to explore them. I think we need to make a great and special effort for this winter."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1925; col. 2095, Vol. 185.]
We will be within the stride of winter before the House resumes its work in the middle of November. I do not think the country should be asked to wait until then for evidence of the special efforts that are to be made for the winter. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour whether he can in some sense raise the hopes of the unemployed by giving us to-day some information as to the special efforts that are afoot with a view to lessening unemployment in the course of the winter? Unemployed men suffer in the winter to some extent because others enjoy themselves to excess in the summer. I recall references to a "brilliant London season" which has just closed. I have in mind the dangerous yet unrestrained exhibitions of extravagance enjoyed by so many; I have read of dinners, parties and dances, dresses, and jewels. Hon. Members opposite may treat us severely by their censure for alluding to this branch of this question. It is part of it. Hon. Members opposite would be doing their country greater service if they would call attention at times to some of these exhibitions.

Lieut. - Colonel STOTT: Mostly Americans; and do not the Labour leaders give parties?

Mr. CLYNES: These things aggravate and stimulate tendencies there may be towards what I have mentioned, and if the convenience or the silence of the Government in relation to these matters proves it to be a Government, though possessed of power, to be a Government without a policy or principle on matters to which they have given such solemn pledges, it is a pity. I think, as I have indicated, Ministers by their silence may suggest a certain reserve in their statements, but they have a party responsibility. I want to attach that to the whole of the Members of the present Government and to those who support them. This is what was declared on behalf of the Unionist party in the party manifesto which appeared in the "Times" on 13th October.
The Unionist party would be unfaithful to its principles and to its duty if it did not treat the task of grappling with the unemployment of our people and the serious condition of industry as a primary obligation.
I say that there is a definite solemn party promise which in no sense has found expression in the policy or in the action of the Government. I do not know what the principles of the Unionist party may be—

Miss WILKINSON: Hear, hear!

Mr. CLYNES: I attach little importance to their talk about principles, but I do say that the Government has a duty, however lacking in principle they may be. They have accepted the great task of governing.

Mr. LANSBURY: Hear, hear!

Mr. CLYNES: And they are confronted with the greatest problem that statesmen have ever had to face. Just as the Prime Minister said last year, or rather at the beginning of this year, referring to the late Labour Government, that any Government would be broken that did not deal with unemployment, I say that the present Government, when the day comes— and come it will because of their failure to handle this matter—will deserve the fate that they receive.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I am very reluctant to criticise the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. As a matter of fact, there are certain passages in his speech which seem to me to show some glimmering of hope that he has begun to realise what really are the great problems which are confronting this country. I will refer to them in moment or two. An attack has been made by the right hon. Gentleman because of the statement in the King's Speech that the Government is going to proceed to various measures of relief, which have already been undertaken, and I yet hope we shall hear from the Minister of Labour when he deals with the matter that the existing palliatives have been continued, and have been extended. Then, at least, I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) will acquit the Government of having secured votes at the last Election on the ground that we had any definite and clear way of dealing with this unemployment question. I am
perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman, who opened this Debate is one of those who is held in the highest esteem. I know that his word always goes with his colleagues and those who follow him in the Trade Union movement. I am perfectly convinced that he really imagines that he had a cure, and that it would be easy, when he was situated on the Governmental Benches with his party, to be able to deal with the matter in the kind of way promised the electors. When the Socialist Government were on those benches I think they discovered immense difficulties in their way.
One thing I do hope the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour will not do, and that is to carry out the advice of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down about giving hope to the unemployed. It is positively immoral to hold out any great hopes in view of the situation in this country until we are in a position to say that we are really going to improve matters. I do not think there is anybody in any section of the House who believes that under our existing system at this moment we really can do that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am very glad to hear those cheers given by the party opposite, because I have found great sympathy in their ranks with these proposals. I agree with Disraeli that it is by certain principles alone that you can keep this country great. He warned us that the dark and inevitable hour would arrive and then when our spirit is softened with misfortune we will recur to those principles which made England great, and alone can keep her great!

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: On a point of Order. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is allowed to explain a system of tariffs as a cure for unemployment, shall we be allowed subsequently to reply?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am rather inclined to think that tariffs would need legislation, and, if so, that certainly is not a proper subject for discussion at the moment.

Sir H. CROFT: I can assure you, Sir, that I am always—

Mr. SPEAKER: I would also point out that nationalisation would require legislation.

Sir H. CROFT: I am obliged to you, Sir. I think there is no doubt that had I transgressed the Rules of the House in my speech, very soon you would have exercised your authority to bring my remarks to a close. Merely because I quote someone who, after all, is a well-known figure in the history of this country, my hon. and gallant Friend need not necessarily imagine that I am immediately going to advocate tariffs. But I am perfectly satisfied that at the present time the least we can do is to carry out more effectively and to administer more efficiently the small beginnings we have made with certain industries in an attempt to deal with unemployment.
I was a little sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting, for the first time in my recollection, strike what I think I may call the class note. It is perfectly true that there is a very great deal of luxury to be seen in this country. I think most Members in all parties agree that a vulgar display of luxury is something which ought to be condemned; and if I may be forgiven for one short diversion, since the right hon. Gentleman has tempted me, I am inclined to hope that his words mean that he is prepared to bring luxuries such as diamonds and furs within the scope of action by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I, for one, would most heartily support such a proposal. But when the right hon. Gentleman tells us that more jewellery is seen about than ever before, I would utter a caveat to the effect that I am afraid that a great number of the pearls we see are not real, and that whereas there is more jewellery visible around the beautiful necks of the ladies of this country, the vast majority of the wearers are worse off and do not now wear the genuine article.
Leaving this point, I agree that it is true that unemployment will break any Government that cannot deal with it. What is the good of statesmanship if it cannot ensure that our people are fully employed and receiving fair wages? That is the real test. We must not allow our country to be sacrificed on the altar of the bankers, or on the altar of those who wish leave things alone and imagine that we have only to go on repeating old formulae such as "imports will be paid for by exports," like a gramophone
record, when they know that it is absolutely untrue, and that such a proceeding is merely trifling with the people of this country. It is time to cease this continual fiddling while Rome is burning.
We on this side are quite as well aware that the position of this country to-day is a most grievous one, as are hon. Members opposite. The hon. Gentleman opposite has asked, "What about our electricity undertakings?" but we cannot accomplish things in a hurry. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) wanted to produce a scheme last year, but he told us that the harnessing of the Severn must take two years' consideration before anything at all could be done, and that then there would be another period of seven years before the work could be completed; and the Canute-like action which was recommended in regard to the reclamation of the Wash was going to take seven years, I think, and employ only 300 men a year. It is no use confusing the public mind. Somehow or other we have to get over this great problem. The trouble is that there is not enough work to go round— that is the trouble, put in clear and simple language; and the reason for it is that we cannot sell to those to whom we wish to sell on the Continent of Europe and that we are buying too much.
We have started, in a small way, to try to deal with that situation. I know it is impossible for me, much as I should like to have been drawn by the fly cast by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn), to discourse upon this all-important subject, for we cannot put forward any constructive measures in this Debate, but fortunately I can deal with what has been attempted by His Majesty's Government, and will be, I hope, extended. I would like to point out the astonishing fact that, whilst we have 1,250,000 unemployed, our imports of manufactured goods have increased in two years by no less than £134,000,000. I am not going to suggest what the remedy is, but I say it is a very remarkable fact that when we see the misery of our people we should allow this colossal increase of imports of the very products which our unemployed could themselves be making. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting said that while there was always a great deal of talk about our foreign trade we ought to remember that the home market was of much more value,
and he is absolutely right. On a certain occasion when Germany was altering her policy, and the great prosperity of England was pointed out to Bismarck in connection with what he was proposing, he replied, "There will come a time when England will be fighting to save her home market." That prophecy of Bismarck's has come true. Our home market is now directly threatened.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting whether, in view of this astounding increase of 33⅓ per cent. in imports of manufactured goods at a time when we have 1,250,000 unemployed, his party do not contemplate altering their frame of mind towards the safeguarding of our industries? I know that some of the right hon. Gentleman's friends are in favour, during this difficult period, of a total prohibition of the imports of those goods, but I think, at the present time, that is not a policy which the House of Commons as a whole would accept. From the point of view of the saving which could be made on the dole alone, I would ask whether it is not imperative that we should consider the position of those industries which are now under consideration in connection with the safeguarding scheme. No one wishes to safeguard an industry which is prosperous, happy and contented, but we ought to try to save those few industries which are in real peril of being completely and utterly destroyed. When we hear the stories from various districts, pitiful stories—we have heard them from the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) with regard to his constituency—we ought to ask ourselves what this policy has already accomplished, even in its present limited application. What has it done? What has it proved? I believe I am right in saying that, as a result of those terrible Silk Duties which gave just the slightest turn in favour of the home producer, there is not a silk worker out of work in Macclesfield to-day, not one, and the industry is laying plans for larger factories, while foreign manufacturers are already buying up our derelict factories in other industries in order to manufacture those articles the production of which was, as we were told, going to be ruined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These are the facts as to what has been done in one or two
industries; and I imagine the same story is coming from Nottingham.
I would ask the attention of the Minister of Labour to this, because I frankly confess that I am not quite satisfied with the attitude of the Government on this subject. Though I do not, think they are fiddling while Borne is burning, I think they are too much inclined to play on the harp, and imagine that by singing sweet discords, peace amongst all men, we can safeguard our industries, but I do not believe that is so. May I ask the Minister for Labor whether he will consider these very startling facts? Here we are debating the question of unemployment, and asking ourselves what is the only cure for unemployment, and the one answer we get is "Finding employment." Comparing the six months ending 30th June this year with the first six months of 1922, we find that our chinaware and glassware import's have more than doubled; that imports of iron and steel manufactures—very important, in view of the question the right hon. Gentleman has addressed to the Government—have more than doubled: Don-ferrous metals and manufactures thereof, more than doubled; electrical goods, multiplied by three times; cotton manufactures, nearly doubled; woollen and worsted manufactures—there is very great distress in those industries—nearly doubled; silk manufactures, nearly doubled; other textile manufactures, more than doubled; wearing apparel, doubled; vehicles of all kinds, more than doubled. These are facts which must astound even our hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith. I know very well that if he wants a new suit, being a great patriot, and believing sincerely in his creed, that he would buy that suit from Germany, because he says that that suit is going to be paid for by a suit that Germany is going to buy from us.

Captain BENN: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been so good as to address a question to me, will he tell us how these imports have been paid for?

Sir H. CROFT: I will tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that in the past we paid for—

Captain BENN: No, at this time.

Sir H. CROFT: I will tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman how they are being
paid for at the present moment—if he will allow me to go back over the last two years. In 1922 we were actually importing more than we were exporting by the astounding sum of £79,750,000, in 1923 by £92,300,000, in 1924 by £135,700,000, and in the first six months of 1925—I have been taking the six months' period all through — by £207,000,000. Last year's adverse balance was £340,000,000, and at the present rate we look like having an adverse balance of £450,000,000 upon the completion of this year. [Interruption.] That is the great danger. The right hon. Gentleman can explain to his fellow-countrymen that once his immutable law has ceased functioning we are absolutely spending our national capital, and this country will become poorer and poorer. The hon. and gallant Member asked me how the imports were to be paid for? The answer is simple. They are being paid for, firstly, by goods; secondly, by invisible exports—but the invisible exports are very largely disappearing and the position has come to such a pass that we are actually, importing more goods than we can pay for by any means whatsoever. If someone in his own business found that he was buying more than he could pay for, he would buy less, and I submit that, as with an individual so with a nation, we must buy less of the things which we can make ourselves. That is precisely why we are pressing upon the Government to pursue further the policy of safeguarding industry, because the only way to remedy this difficulty is to try and reduce your imports of manufactured goods, which are coming into this country at the present time.
The United States was faced with a problem very much like our own, but a much greater one, in the year 1921. At that time, when they adopted the Fordney Tariff, the United States had 5,250,000 people unemployed, and that was a terrible state of things. I am not suggesting for a moment that any action such as safeguarding was responsible for the whole of the change which took place in regard to this problem, but it is a remarkable fact that even within a year after this safeguarding measure was adopted the whole of the 5,250,000 unemployed were absorbed in industry. Those who were solicitous of protecting
the welfare of America at that time said the same thing about that proposal as has been said in this country with regard to the safeguarding of the lace industry, namely, that while you may improve things at the moment you will restrict your imports of raw material, and consequently you will restrict your exports. As a matter of fact, the reverse has happened. As far as the United States are concerned ever since 1922 they have been selling more and more abroad, and their total overseas trade has gone up enormously and to a far greater extent than in this country. Therefore I ask the Government this question. In order to try and remedy the situation we see before us will they not try the remedy I have suggested, which is the only real one? It is no good one front bench abusing the other because you have not turned a few more men to working on the roads, because that will never solve this question. What you have to do is to get down to the root of the problem and restore the prosperity of our industries. You are not going to rectify this question by a reduction of wages, which is one of the fatal mistakes made by the Manchester school.

Captain BENN: Will you toll us what the wages are in protected countries?

Sir H. CROFT: Yes, they are two and a-half times as high in the United States, they are twice as high in Australia, and two and a half-times as high in Canada, and two and a-half times as high in New Zealand. I am taking countries which are naturally more closely assimilated to this country. Now I suggest that we have an opportunity of extending that same principle which has reduced the unemployed at Macclesfield to nil, which is doing the same for the lace workers in Nottingham, and which has completely wiped out the whole of the unemployed in the city of Oxford under the McKenna Duties. I know these are only very small things, but there are a great many hon. Members who think that this Government might have acted a little more speedily on this subject, and might have helped a few more industries which are crying out for assistance, and are very much depressed at the present moment.
The only other possible remedy I should like to refer to is the one which was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting in regard to
Empire development. Those £10,000,000 are wanted, and wanted speedily, if you are going to develop our African possessions and enable them to produce more cotton. I hope the Government will not allow people in the City to influence them by saying that the present moment is not opportune. If the Lancashire cotton industry is in peril it is our duty to put up the money required even if it involves an increase in taxation. Now you have got this chance, and this is one of the best ways of developing our trade, and I hope the Government will get on with it. Having recently returned from East Africa, I am in a position to say that every thinking man out there realises that there are great possibilities in those countries for the extension of British trade and industrial development. It seemed to me perfectly amazing what was contained in the arrangement of some of our trade treaties in those countries, and the Government seem to forget that those treaties can be denounced from time to time. When I went to Kenya and Uganda I found there any amount of foreign goods, although the whole country has been supported by British credit, and yet there is no advantage extended to British manufactures. I think that is another point which demands a remedy. We have also to recognise that emigration from this country has not gone on at the same pace as before the War, and we are now actually employing more people in this country than before the War. If emigration had gone on at the same rate as it did up to the middle months of 1914 we should have emigrated some 3,000,000 people from this country, and then we should have had no unemployment problem.

Mr. HARRIS: In spite of Free Trade.

Sir H. CROFT: Yes, in spite of Free Trade. I do not understand why the hon. Member should not use his wits to develop our Empire trade which is hostile to the principle of laissez faire. You have now 3,000,000 people in this country who under ordinary conditions would have been moved to our overseas possessions. I say that it is our bounden duty, whatever the cost, to make it possible for any young lad in this country who cannot secure work, and who has a big enough heart, to make it possible for him to go to our untenanted Lominions overseas where there is an opportunity offered to
him of securing a livelihood. Surely it is not too late for the Government to grapple with that question in the same way as the whole nation grappled with the problems of the late War. There is plenty of land to be developed, the increment of which would give back very soon to the State its original value. Wall anyone say that it is impossible for us to co-operate with the Prime Ministers of the Dominions overseas to use the credit of this country to secure land for cultivation and for the Dominions to hold that land as security against such debts. If we had some scheme of Empire emigration of this kind developed on a large scale surely that would be the first solvent of the unemployed problem, the housing problem, and it would be the end of your dole system and the end of the three great problems with which you are faced at the present moment. I can only say once more that I believe there is a solemn duty which falls upon every single Member of this House, and that is to see that employment is secured for every one of the workers in this country, because you cannot have a contented or a loyal race if you neglect the first duty of citizenship, which is to see that your industries are not undermined and destroyed by a system which is unfair and unjust.

Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: I have no intention whatever of following the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down along the by-paths which he has traversed. The facility with which he has quoted statistics and percentages is strangely reminiscent of some of his election speeches, and I can now understand why he was able to mesmerise those ladies at Bournemouth. I associate myself with him to the full in what he said about promoting cotton growing within the Empire. He made that particular plea for the Lancashire cotton trade. The cotton industry in Lancashire is one of the basic trades of this country, and when Lancashire suffers the country at large also suffers. The one encouraging feature in this and other Debates on unemployment is that, irrespective and in spite of all the differences which divide us as parties and individuals, we are all agreed in regarding unemployment as the grimmest and most hideous spectre that stalks the land. It darkens the hearths of thousands of homes. It impairs the prestige of the nation and lowers its vitality, and it
also menaces the security of the nation. I think we are all agreed upon another point. We are all agreed that what is really needed is a remedy and not relief. The House should set itself to seek a remedy and not relief, and that is my principal objection to the speech which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) has made to-day, because he was constantly pleading about minor points concerning relief instead of boldly tackling the question of a remedy.
It is well that we should remind ourselves that in economics as in medical treatment the real remedy cannot be discovered unless first of all the generating causes are revealed. In the course of his speech this evening the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting paid a very strong and just tribute to the trade union officials. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the trade union officials of this country have been a most potent factor in keeping industrial peace, because they have addressed themselves again and again to the task of preventing upheavals. Since the right hon. Gentleman has paid that tribute to trade unions, I think he will agree with me that one of the safe and soundest trade unionists in this country is Mr. Appleton. [HON. MEMBEES: "No."] At any rate, I regard him as such. I do not know whether hon. Members have read the book which Mr. Appleton has written upon unemployment, but it is one of the best books which has been written on that subject. In that work Mr. Appleton avoids the mistake which has been made this afternoon by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting, namely, that he avoids that confusion which is so characteristic of so many of our Debates on this subject. Mr. Appleton points out that there are three separate phases of unemployment. Firstly, what he calls cyclical; secondly, seasonal; and thirdly, endemic. The cyclical is that form which at irregular periods afflicts industries and trades usually regarded as stable.
5.0 P.M.
They have produced beyond the absorbing capacity of the markets to which they have access. The seasonal phase of unemployment differs from the cyclical in the sense that its periods follow each other regularly, and price, as Mr. Appleton
points out, enters into the problem far less than fashion. Then there is the last and grimmest phase—what he calls the endemic phase, which is always with us. It includes that unemployment which results from loss of equilibrium between supply and demand. I think Mr. Appleton was right when he stressed the consideration that, when the life of the community is mainly dependent upon manufacture and industry, as it is in this country, unemployment in some form or other becomes a periodic certainty, especially when, as is now the case, the rates of exchange with our foreign customers vary from day to day—for unemployment, as we ought to remind ourselves, depends upon buying as well as upon selling. That phase is aggravated at the present time by reason of the fact that countries which in pre-War days were amongst our best customers are now competing with us in the same markets, for they are producing for export as well as for use.
It has been truly said, and I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting overlooked this consideration, that there are three separate causes in the production of unemployment. There are circumstances which predispose to unemployment; there are circumstances which precipitate it; and there are circumstances which perpetuate it. The remedies must be as diversified as the causes, and they must be adjusted to the circumstances, for remedies in economics, as in medicine, can only be valuable in so far as they afford relief without involving fatal reaction. I venture, therefore, to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting, and also to the Minister of Labour, that what is wanted in these days is the spirit of sympathetic co-operation. Supposing that all the suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting were carried out, some of which he enumerated to-day—electrical development, a closer and more effective nexus between industry and agriculture, a closer connection between this country and the Dominions, and more room in it—does the right hon. Gentleman really think we shall touch the real source of the trouble? He taunted the Prime Minister to-day with having made promises which have not been fulfilled, but he himself cannot forget that on one occasion, when he was making an
attack on the Liberal party, he claimed that he and his colleagues had many scores of schemes for dealing with unemployment. It is quite true that that was said at the time of an election, but he and his colleagues had their opportunity afterwards, and, as he will admit, those schemes, unfortuately, did not materialise.
What is really wanted to-day is consultation between the heads of parties. We have heard it said that the basic principle of the League of Nations is to bring peoples together in order to bring about a sympathetic understanding of the problems that divide them, and of the causes that generate friction and warfare. Why cannot we have the same thing in industry? I agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) that it should not pass the wit of statesmanship to devise some solution of this problem. It is not for us on the back benches to suggest schemes to right hon. Gentlemen on either of the Front Benches, but I venture to think that, if only the leaders of the various parties would come to the consideration of this problem with that same deep eagerness to secure a solution which medical men display in their investigations into the causes of diseases that scourge humanity —if only that eagerness could be shown, instead of these niggling criticisms and this desire to make party capital out of a matter which ought to be raised above all party—I venture to say that, if that spirit were shown by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting, who is one of the sanest and best leaders of Labour in this country, if he would take the initiative, and try to convene a conference of the leaders of the various parties in order to get something done for the unemployed, and not merely to make party capital, something could be done. I hope the Minister of Labour will be able to tell us to-night that he is addressing himself to the task of dealing with the roots of this question, with a view to finding a remedy rather than a mere passing, temporary relief.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I rise with great diffidence to address the House for the first time, particularly when the subject is that of unemployment. My diffidence is partly because, in all probability, the few remarks that I desire to make have been made far more adequately
and eloquently by other Members in the House before, and, secondly, because I rather dread the somewhat critical faculties of wit and wisdom which, even in my short experience of this House, I have found that hon. Members so abundantly possess. I feel, however, that I have to adventure, against these objections for two reasons. The first is the exceeding gravity of the industrial situation confronting the country to-day. The second is a recent experience which has resulted, happily, in my being here, and through which I gained a great deal of diverse opinion on the subject of unemployment. I was brought into contact with varied expressions of opinion, some of which I feel may possibly interest Members, not alone on this side, but on the opposite side of the House.
As far as I can see it, the basic problem that really affects us to-day, and is most suitable for our consideration, is work. But to produce work we must have trade. I suppose it is a truism to say that unemployment is due to bad trade. That brings us to the question, To what is bad trade due? I expect some Members on the oposite benches would say, "A Tory Government," but in my opinion bad trade is due more or less, broadly speaking, to three reasons. The first is unfair competition, as hon. Members know, from our Continental neighbours. Owing to the longer hours, lower wages, and lower standard of living which the workers in those countries are prepared to accept, they can compete against us on, from our point of view, unfair terms; and, of course, also, the balance of the exchange is against us.
The second reason is that during the War we were forced to divert vast numbers of men and vast quantities of machinery from productive industries to war and the manufacture of munitions of war, and it was from those industries that we were able, to a large extent, to supply our Continental neighbours. Those countries, failing supplies from us, had to initiate sources of supply for themselves, and that meant loss of markets to us again. The third reason is the low rate of production prevailing in many of our industries to-day, and, of course, when there is low production, there is expensive production, for the overhead charges remain much the same, and, therefore, we are up against the same inability to compete on favour-
able terms with our neighbours. Unfortunately, it is not only our outside markets that we lose by these means, but we lose our home markets as well. I want to give one more reason for our present state of bad trade, and that, I regret to say, is the restriction of output which is practically imposed by certain great trade unions to-day. That has the natural result of increasing the cost of our production, as every hon. Member will realise.
Those are, as far as I can see, the three or four reasons which have reduced this country to its present state of bad trade. What has the Government done to rectify this position, and what can still be done? It seems to me that we might, well spend a few minutes in considering that. As regards unfair competition, the Government have, as we know, reimposed the measures of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and thereby we are enabled to preserve the work and wages of our workmen who are engaged in those threatened industries. We do not fear any fair competition. All hon. Members will, I know, agree with me that our British workmen—and especially, I may say, as a Member from Scotland, our Scottish workmen—are equal to the best, if not better than the beet, of the world's workmen, but they must have a square deal, and that is what the measure that has been introduced with the Budget is going to confer upon them.
With this measure of Safeguarding of Industries may be coupled, possibly, the McKenna Duties. Some hon. Members opposite will not agree with me about the advisability of the reimposition of the McKenna Duties, but perhaps I may just give one example which may convince them once and for all that they are wrong. In my own constituency last year, when the Socialist Government removed the McKenna Duties, one firm in Ayr was compelled to dismiss about 50 per cent. of its employés. This year, since it was announced that the McKenna Duties were to be reimposed, that firm has been able to take on every employé who was dismissed, those employés are working overtime, and their wages have increased by 46 per cent. That is one result, for which I can personally vouch, of the reimposition
of the McKenna Duties and the action of the Government to safeguard and preserve our trade.
I now come to the second cause of our position, namely, the loss of markets to which I have referred. My feeling is that, so far as the Continent is concerned, we shall never get those markets back. As I said just now, those countries which we supplied before were driven by force of necessity to start their own plant, their own machinery, and their own methods of production, and now they can supply their own requirements more cheaply than we can. Therefore, I think we can wash out the Continental markets from the scope of our consideration. But we have no need to despair, for there are fresh and better markets at our disposal, markets, if I may say so, right within the family circle; and the Government, by their action in introducing Imperial Preference, have brought those markets to our door. It seems to me that it is in the Empire and within the Empire that our trade lies, for, after all, we can obtain cheaply from fair Dominions the raw materials that we want. That means that we can manufacture cheaply, which, again, means that we can sell cheaply. That means that not only can we sell back to those Dominions who are waiting and asking for our finished manufactures, but we are enabled once again to regain our own home markets, which we have been in danger of losing lately. What I would like to impress upon the House, if they will not mind listening to me, is that it is the family spirit that we want to cultivate, not the international spirit. We want to clasp the clean, friendly hands from our Dominions, not the bloodstained hands of the gang of cosmopolitan crooks that dictate at Moscow.

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman entitled to call a friendly Government a gang of cosmopolitan crooks in Moscow?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I think the hon. Member has mistaken what I said. I said we want to clasp the clean, friendly hands extended from our Dominions rather than the bloodstained hands of the gang of cosmopolitan crooks that dictate at Moscow.

Mr. LANSBURY: I want to ask if that is in order?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Hope):: I do not think the remarks are out of order. Whether they are apposite is a matter for the judgment of the House. Remarks of that kind are not out of order as far as I know.

Mr. LANSBURY: We are not allowed to put questions reflecting on a friendly Government. Are we allowed to make speeches reflecting on them?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think if the hon. Member will study the remarks made by Mr. Gladstone, for example, on the Government of Naples at the time, he will probably find ample precedents.

Mr. LANSBURY: The clerks at the Table ought to be instructed on that.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not a matter for me.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I now come to the third reason that I consider exists for our present state of depression in industry, and that is the low, and therefore expensive, production existing in most of our industries. This, to my mind, can only be rectified by co-operation between those who work with their hands, those who work with their brains, and those who work with their money, all and each equally important to the general prosperity. It is there that the question of cheap production must be settled. Outside or Government interference is, in my opinion, useless and may do more harm than good. It is the man who works in the mine or before the furnace or on the land, and the man who pays him, who only can settle what hours are to be worked and what wages are to be paid in the industry.
Now I come to the fourth of my reasons, and that is the position taken up by certain trade unions. There I think the Government must intervene and once and for all cripple the power of certain trade unions to dictate to the honest, zealous and ambitious workman exactly what he must or must not produce, and exactly what he must or must not earn. I think the Government, when they consider that point, will see the absolute necessity of it, and I can leave it with confidence in their hands. But what we want above all is good-will, and I appeal to certain hon. Members opposite, and through them to their followers throughout the country,
and also to certain sections of our Press, especially at the present time when the whole industrial welfare of the country is trembling in the balance, to restrain from inspiring and promoting this accursed thing, class consciousness. I call it class-hatred. It is so easy, it makes so much for popularity, to preach equal wealth for all and plenty of it, and equal work for all and little of it. But I warn those Members opposite and their followers who so preach that the time may come when their party will be returned to power and office, and when that time comes the hour of fulfilment will come, and when the hour of fulfilment comes the division bells throughout the country will ring for this division of wealth and work, and I warn hon. Members and some of their followers —they are not all represented here unfortunately; I should like them to hear what I have to say—that even the amenities of a visit to Moscow will prove very inadequate compensation for the cries of a betrayed and a stricken people. So I beg that Members of all parties composing the State will devote their efforts during the next few critical weeks or months to preaching the gospel of goodwill, and not ill-will, the gospel of unity, not disunity. I would ask them to preach the gospel of unity between employer and employed, each working in a spirit of co-operation for the common good of both. I would ask them to preach the unity of the great Christian Churches, so that all should combine to inspire a feeling of tolerance and charity and understanding between the different sections of their followers, unity between all the divergent interests of the great States composing this great British Commonwealth of ours, which would induce a common outlook and mutual prosperity, and above all, I ask them to preach for an understanding and communion between the English-speaking peoples to work and advance the cause, which we all have at heart, of civilisation and humanity and peace. I feel in my heart that it is only by these means that we can hope one day to achieve the prayer of the Prime Minister for peace in our time.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I am sure I shall be expressing the feeling of all sides of the House in congratulating the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken, though we may not agree with all he has said, on his happy turn of
phrase and his ability to express himself. We have all heard him with pleasure, and shall look forward to further contributions. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), who spoke previously, gave us one of his delightful excursions into Tariff Reform, which was to be a panacea to cure the ills of unemployment, and towards the end of his speech he told us that if only emigration could have been kept up at its normal rate, there would have been no unemployment notwithstanding that we live under the stress of Free Trade. Finally, he told us that the land question was at the root of the evil, and if we emigrated our people to the Colonies, the increment of land values which would accrue from the establishment of these new colonists would pay for the cost of emigration, and would have been a cure for all evils. I am sure we shall welcome this new convert to land reform and ask him to apply the solution, not only to the Colonies, but to the homeland.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understand that Mr. Speaker was preparing to check the hon. Baronet. I hope the hon. Member will not follow his lead.

Mr. THOMSON: I realise that I am out of order, but it was only in attempting to reply very briefly to the hon. and gallant Baronet, who occupied half an hour in dealing with this question. However, I will turn from that, much as I am tempted to follow the hon. Baronet, and I should like to ask the Government what they have to tell us before we separate on this question of unemployment. We have had many unemployment Debates during the last five years, but we have never met under circumstances that are more tragic or when the outlook was more despondent than it is on the eve of our separation. We are facing the fifth winter of discontent—the fifth winter of terrible unemployment—and so far the Government have offered no new contribution towards the problem that is facing us. In fact, their only contribution appears to be to seek to take men off unemployment benefit, and deprive them of the relief that has been given by previous Governments. Unfortunately, reading the Estimates, apparently this is the decided policy of the Government, to do nothing, or to do comparatively little. In the Estimates for the year, the
Government are making less provision financially to deal with unemployment than their predecessors, and I should like to ask on what grounds those Estimates were framed. We find that the Unemployed Grants Vote is down by £295,000, the money for the relief of unemployment by £639,000, and the Vote for the Ministry of Labour by £623,000, making a total reduction on the various Votes that go towards unemployment in one form or another of over £1,500,000, and this at a time when unemployment is infinitely more severe than it was a year ago.
Why is it that they have adopted this cheese-paring policy on these services, when they have been so lavish, on the Navy and the armament services? If they can spend four or five millions on services which do not profit the nation, surely, there is no reason why they should cut down the money required to deal with the tragic problem of unemployment. They have no vision as to what can be done. Reference has been made to the need for electrical development, for improved roads, and, I might add, inland waterways. The present Minister of Health was the Chairman of a Commission that sat four or five years ago and went into the question of our inland water transport. They made most valuable recommendations, which would have improved our methods of transport, assisted our commerce, and also found a large amount of work. Why have they not attempted to put in hand that class of work? Surely, the old prophet was correct when he said "Where there is no vision, the people perisheth." The Government have not had the foresight or the vision to provide for this terrible question of unemployment. The hon. Baronet referred to these things as being mere palliatives. But if no other scheme is forthcoming, a palliative is better than nothing, and if the Government themselves are unable to carry out these schemes, is that any reason why they should stand in the way of the local authorities carrying them out?
They sent out a circular to local authorities inviting their help, and asking for particulars of works which could be carried out in the local districts. Unfortunately, while asking for these suggestions, they did not hold out any hope of giving additional assist-
ance to enable them to do so. Many local authorities have valuable schemes of productive work in the way of improved local roads, reclamation of foreshore, improved amenities, more schools and other public buildings, all of which they can put in hand themselves and employ many thousands more unemployed than are at present being engaged. But they cannot afford to pay the cost at the price. The contribution which has been made by previous Governments only amounts to one-third of the total cost involved. They have allowed 65 per cent, of the cost for half the period of the loan. In some cases they have increased the allowance up to 75 per cent, of the cost for half the period of the loan. Those figures work out at considerably less than one-third of the total cost. That is a very inadequate contribution towards the burden of providing schemes for the unemployed.
In the opinion of myself and my hon. Friends who sit on this side of the House, the charge for unemployment should be a national and not a local charge. It is not the fault of the localities. It is not the fault of the employers of labour, nor of the workers, who, in many cases, are turning out more work and increased production as compared with the period before the War. An employer of labour, speaking in my Division recently, said that the workmen there in the heavy iron and steel trade had a bigger output than they had in 1913–14. It is not the fault of the employés, as was rather suggested by the last speaker. It is not the fault of the employers, who are seeking for work, nor is it the fault of the local authorities. Therefore, the Government should be more generous in their assistance to the local authorities. If they are not prepared to find the work themselves and put the schemes in hand, do not let them stand in the way of those local authorities who have the work and could put it in hand and employ a large number of the unemployed.
At Question Time to-day we were told that the total number employed in connection with the various schemes was something like 100,000. What is 100,000 compared with one and a-quarter millions out of work? I do not suggest that it is possible to find work for anything like one and a-quarter millions of people,
but it is possible to increase by 100 per cent, the number employed at present if only the Government would give more adequate assistance to the local authorities who are prepared to do the work themselves. How manifestly unfair it is to have a flat rate of assistance, because in one district the unemployment is infinitely greater than in another. Whilst the average of unemployment throughout the country is only 12.2 per cent.— and that is bad enough—you have on the north-east coast, in the shipbuilding industry, unemployment at the rate of 45 per cent. It has been over 40 per cent, for a considerable time. In marine engineering the unemployment figure is 30 per cent., and in the iron and steel trade throughout the country it is over 24 per cent. It is unfair when you have these very heavy rates of unemployment in certain districts that those particular districts should only get the same assistance from the Government as those districts where the rate of unemployment is only 10 per cent., or less.
Is it not possible for the Government to consider some revision of the principle and method by which they allocate the funds? If they cannot increase considerably the amount they are prepared to devote to this cause, surely they could give to those districts where the need is greatest a bigger proportion of assistance than to those districts whose need is infinitely less. We have that reflected in the different rates which apply throughout the country. You have in some residential towns where they have a small industrial population very little unemployment, such as Oxford, Bournemouth", Southport and Blackpool, where the local rates are 8s. to 9s. in the £, compared with industrial areas such as Middlesbrough, where our rates are 19s. 4d., and Sheffield, where the rates are over 15s., and Merthyr Tydfil, where the rates are over 24s. Therefore, the present allocation hits very unfairly those districts which are the poorest. You are leaving the poor to carry their own burden. They want more assistance from the State.

Sir H. CROFT: Is this an individual demand on the part of the hon. Member, or does the Liberal party ask for more State assistance?

Mr. THOMSON: I am speaking with the approval of a large number of my
hon. Friends on this side, both above and below the Gangway. It was my privilege last week to accompany a deputation to the Prime Minister, representing all sections in the House, comprising a large number of political friends of my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, as well as my own friends, to ask that these districts should be dealt with more favourably.

Sir H. CROFT: Spend more money!

Mr. THOMSON: Not necessarily spend more money, but that the money that has to be spent should be so used or allocated that the burden should fall upon the backs of those who are best able to bear it. We ask that the State should give a larger share to the poorer localities whose rates are 19s. to 20s. in the pound, and that their burden should be eased to a certain extent. Why, for instance, should the poor rate in Blackpool be only 4d. and the poor rate in Middlesbrough be 7s. 3d.? It is not the fault of the Middlesbrough local authority. The Middlesbrough Board of Guardians are not more wasteful than the Blackpool Board of Guardians. It is owing to the industrial character of the district that there is a much heavier charge on the Poor Law. Many of these districts in the heavy iron and steel trade during the War were asked to employ more men. Men were drafted into these districts in order to swell the manufacturing output. The conditions to-day are the aftermath of the War, because owing to the shortage of houses throughout the country surplus labour was unable to flow back again, and in many of these iron and steel districts, and many other districts where unemployment is bad, the population which was swelled during the War has been unable to get back to their own districts. In consequence, these particular districts are burdened to an abnormal extent.
In my own town—and I give it as typical of scores of other places—we have spent during the last two or three years over £1,000,000 in unemployment relief schemes. The unemployment committee of my district a few weeks ago passed a resolution that, unless the Government were prepared to assist to a larger extent than they are doing at the present time, they would be unable to finance any more schemes. The schemes they have now in hand are small enough. Every week-end
when I go to my constituency I have many people coming to see me and appealing to me to use my influence to get them a job on the roads. It is impossible. I have inquired at the Employment Exchange, and they tell me that if a man has had a job more than once in six months he has had more than his turn, and he has to wait another six months. It would be better to spend less money in unemployment benefit and more in schemes of a productive character and schemes promoted by the local authorities. Since the Armistice, we have spent in payments for out-of-work unemployment benefit, and in relief of able-bodied men and women, over £300,000,000. That great sum of money has been paid away to able-bodied men and women for no service rendered.
That is a foolish policy. It is essential that these people should not be left to starve, but, on the other hand, it would be infinitely more sensible if for the money they receive they gave service, and service which they would be glad to give, because men and women do not wish to draw unemployment pay for no service rendered. They come to me over and over again, and to other hon. Members, saying, "We do not want benefit. What we want is work." The Government could do a great deal more by encouraging these schemes that are palliatives until the world scheme of trade gets going again. Therefore, I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to consider whether the basis of the grants could not be adjusted more to the needs of the case, and to see that those districts that have schemes to put in hand and are willing to put them in hand should be allowed to do so with proper encouragement from the Government.
There are several points to which I should like to draw attention regarding the Employment Exchanges. Several questions have been put lately as to the number of hours of overtime worked at many of the Exchanges. I know that it is impossible to avoid overtime in the rushes that come, but overtime seems to be becoming a regular practice. I submit that something might be done whereby the excessive amount of overtime which is worked regularly month after month could be avoided. In one reply which was given to me the other day, the return showed that in the North Eastern
Division 21 hours per week of overtime were worked by over 500 employés in the month of June. That is far too much. By a rearrangement of duties and the engagement of more men if necessary, thereby finding work for some of the unemployed, a better condition of things might be brought about.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): That amount of overtime was for the first week in June, and it has diminished week after week ever since.

Mr. THOMSON: I am open to correction, but I understood from the answer that the overtime was for the four weeks ending the 26th June.

Mr. BETTERTON: The amount of overtime worked is at the heavy period when the books are being exchanged. That is the first week in June. From that time the amount of overtime work diminishes.

Mr. THOMSON: If that be the case, it makes the position even worse, because the figures I gave were an average of 21 hours per week for the four weeks. If in the later weeks less overtime was worked, it means that considerably more than 21 hours' overtime were worked in the first or second weeks. There is, therefore, the more reason for a readjustment of duties and, possibly, the re-engagement of more men. In regard to the administration of the Exchanges generally, whilst criticising it, I would like to pay a tribute to the efficiency with which the work is done in the great majority of cases, and under very difficult and trying circumstances. I would urge that the whole system of staffing and the whole system of the organisation of the Exchanges should be reorganised so that they may become not merely the distributors of unemployment benefit but also placing agencies. It was my privilege to sit upon a Departmental Committee which was appointed in 1919 to inquire into the question of the working of the Employment Exchanges, and one of the recommendations we made was that this side of the Exchange work should be developed and encouraged, and that, apart from being distributors of unemployment benefit, they should become real placing agencies, and should specialise in trying to get the confidence of employers and employed, become fully acquainted with the technical needs of the various industries in their own dis-
tricts, and be enabled to offer men and place men much more readily than at the present time. I dare say that it is impossible to do that when unemployment is at a very heavy figure, but I hope that it will be borne in mind by the Minister, and that when unemployment is reduced a more efficient system of Exchanges should be brought about, so that it will act as a means for placing men in industry, as well as the distribution of benefits.
The main question is, that the Government should do more than they are doing. They have done lamentably little. During the time they have been in office they have merely carried out the work done by their predecessors. Although unemployment has increased so rapidly, they have failed to rise to the height of the occasion to meet the problem with the necessary measures of reform and relief. Particularly, they should have regard to the areas where unemployment is abnormally heavy, and see whether in the grants that they make they cannot give a larger proportion to those particularly hard-hit districts which find themselves unable to carry on if they are left with the meagre assistance that has been given to them up to the present time.

Captain CAZALET: Although a new Member myself, I remember the experience of making my maiden speech, and I hope that the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) will not think me patronising if I offer him my heartiest congratulations on the manner in which he came through his ordeal. In all the Debates which have taken place in regard to unemployment in this House, no one on either side has ever attempted to minimise the gravity of the situation. We are all agreed that the only way to solve the problem is to deal with it, not from the point of view of party politics and sectional interests, but from the point of view of what is best for the country as a whole. I wish to put forward an appeal for what I term a voluntary national sacrifice, to meet the immediate necessities of the country. Certain aspects of such a scheme were mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Westmorland (Major Stanley) in the last Debate on unemployment. I should like to preface my remarks by one or two observations which, I am afraid, must be platitudes; but this subject has been discussed so often that it is almost
impossible to say anything that is not a platitude. To-day, I understand, there are actually more people employed in the country than in 1914. Our industrial efficiency has increased during the War and since the War. Therefore, we must be turning out more goods than in 1914, and yet our export trade is down by about 30 per cent. That means that the home consumption must be considerably greater than in 1914, which means that certain sections of the community to-day enjoy a higher standard of living than in 1914. If we are not only to maintain but to improve this standard, it is essential not only to regain the foreign markets, which we have lost, but to increase them in proportion to the increase of our population. Therefore, the one thing essential at present is that we should sell more goods. Neither subsidies nor stunts will help us to do that, but I am certain that it can and will be achieved by brain power, hard work and the thrift of the people of this country.
I realise fully that nothing will be achieved by people getting excited about the situation, one side saying that the only thing that matters is to cut down wages, and the other taking up the dogmatic position "in no way are we prepared to meet you at all. "I realise also that no one could expect any sacrifice of any kind to be made by the wage-earners of this country if they thought that by any reduction in the wages of the workers alone one penny more would go into the pockets of the so-called capitalist classes. Therefore, I say that it is up to the so-called capitalist classes to take the first step, and to make more than a gesture to show that they are prepared to take their part in a national sacrifice, because it is only thus that we can get agreement with the wage-earners of this country, and make possible a national sacrifice which will reduce the cost of production. I would start with economy in Government Departments. When each Department sends up its estimates to the Treasury, if those estimates did not show a decrease from last year's amount I would send them back to make a reduction of 5 per cent. I would ration them in that respect.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: Why not 10 per cent.?

Captain CAZALET: Say x per cent.

Mr. DALTON: Including the Navy estimates?

Captain CAZALET: I entirely concur, but I think that that is hardly in Order. I think that we could then deal with Cabinet Ministers and Members of Parliament. Many Members will be more disposed to agree to my suggestion when I mention that in the time of Pitt there was a voluntary reduction in their salaries by Cabinet Ministers, and I should like also to see a voluntary reduction in the salary of every Member of this House by 5 per cent. I say that figure because our salaries have not been increased since the War, but I realise that the psychological effect of a number of Members of this House, who can afford it, doing something of this kind would produce an impression on the country out of all proportion to the economic value to the Exchequer. Then I should like to extend that to every section of the community. I would fix the line in some way like this. Everybody whose salary was more than 100 per cent, above the pre-War standard should voluntarily sacrifice 10 per cent. I understand that that has already been done in the case of the National Sailors' and Firemen's Union, and I understand that those negotiations were carried through with agreement by both sides, and that the agreement resulted in a reduction of something between 7 and 10 per cent. No one would suggest that either the miners or the agricultural labourers should be asked to give up anything of their wages which are, as everybody will admit, far too small to-day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Right ho!

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is introducing an innovation.

Captain CAZALET: I beg to withdraw. With regard to miners I would suggest that, if the rest of the community were prepared to make a sacrifice of the kind which I have outlined, the miners in the ensuing year in certain districts might be prepared to work a few hours longer a. week. I hope that we shall learn tomorrow, or certainly while the Royal Commission is pursuing its inquiries, whether certain general statements with regard to the mining industry are true or not. As a member of the general public I am not in any way interested in
coal, but the kind of thing you hear is this. If miners in South Wales were to work one hour longer it would mean a reduction of 2s. 6d. a ton in the price of coal. I do not know whether that is so or not, but that is the kind of statement which is made and on which I believe it to be essential that the public should be informed.
The right hon. Member who opened this Debate referred to the question of luxury expenditure. I feel extremely strongly on this point, and I think that if we could inaugurate some national sacrifice such as I have outlined during the next year, during that time there should be an absolute minimum of luxury expenditure, although it is extremely difficult to say exactly what is a luxury. The right hon. Member referred to parties, but it may be that an unfortunate gentleman with five or six unmarried daughters may find it an economy to give a party. There, again, it is up to the individual to decide for himself, and, of course, everybody on this side of the House would most sincerely condemn any form of ostentatious display. There, again, it is not so much the economic but the psychological effect that matters. You cannot expect people to make some sacrifice when they see every day apparently hundreds of members of the community simply lavishing money on unnecessary luxuries and enjoyment.
Then I would suggest, very humbly, that everybody who could afford it in the coming year should do something on these lines: Instead of giving a party or spending money on some form of luxury, he should engage, say, one more gardener from the local Employment-Exchange for the next year. That is a very small thing, I admit, but it is the kind of thing which, if every single individual would do it, would go a considerable way to solve the problem of unemployment. The other day the hon. and gallant Member for Westmorland suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might issue a conversion loan at a smaller rate of interest than is given to-day, and that the public would subscribe generously to that, thereby reducing to a certain extent our national expenditure on interest for this year. I hope that there will be a generous response on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That leads me to
another suggestion, which bankers may tell me is impossible, but bankers are inclined to say that everything is impossible. It was one of these distinguished bankers who said that it was impossible to continue the War after the early months of 1915, owing to the financial situation, but I would like to suggest the possibility of doing some thing on these lines also with regard to the limitation of dividends to, say, 5 or 6 per cent, on the present market price of the shares, and any surplus or profit beyond that should go into the reserve of the company, because there is a general feeling, which is often voiced in this House, "You ask us to economise while we see dividends paid up to 15, 20, and 30 per cent."
Any money which might accrue from the adoption of such methods as I have 6uggested should be dealt with in one or other of three ways. Either it should go immediately to debt redemption or to a reduction in the Estimates for next year, or it should be devoted to one form of subsidy, which is the only subsidy for which I can see any justification. It would be in a case of this kind. Suppose a contract were offered from abroad for, say, over £50,000, and the British tender was only 5 per cent, above the foreign tender, I think in a case like that, if you can get the consent of all the amalgamated manufacturers in this country, and the trade unionists as well, you could give a subsidy of the difference between the foreign tender and our own tender, and so ensure the contract coming to this country. The only excuse for giving a subsidy of this nature would be that when once a firm is fulfilling a contract to the value of £50,000 or more, then it can afford to take another one at a slightly lower or a considerably lower figure. I apologise for delaying the House so long. I know that I shall be told that these are very fantastic ideas, but I do believe that some such sacrifices will be necessary if we are to tide over our present difficulties, and I am certain that if any such sacrifice is made we shall be able to get over our difficulties, and not only regain the markets which we have lost, but increase those markets, and, what is more, we shall be able to maintain and improve the standard of civilisation for the people of this country.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am sure that the House has listened with considerable interest to the suggestions which have been offered by the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet). Whether we agree with these suggestions or not, in whole or in part or not at all, we can at any rate compliment him on this, that he has offered suggestions and has not simply blown off some hot air. I and the hon. Members who sic on these benches disagree strongly with his central argument, and I will endeavour to show why we think that his central argument, if it were acted upon, would aggravate the position. He gave us an instance of how the price of coal could be reduced if the colliers in South Wales could be induced to work one or two hours longer per day.

Captain CAZALET: Per week.

6.0 P.M

Mr. JOHNSTON: The exact time does not matter. The argument was that if they worked one hour extra per day or per week, the cost of the product would be cheapened, we would capture foreign markets, and unemployment would correspondingly decrease. It is a very common argument that we hear from hon. Gentlemen opposite. Immediately the South Wales miner was induced, if he could be induced, to work an hour or two hours longer in the bowels of the earth in order to keep the Portuguese market for coal, what would our German competitors be doing? What would the German coal-masters say? They would immediately say to the German miner, "Look here. The South Wales collier has started to work 10 hours a day. Do you want to keep the Portuguese market? If so, you must in turn work 11 hours per day." We should proceed to an international competition in starvation, which would get us nowhere at all, but would steadily decrease the purchasing power of the working classes and make chaos worse confounded. If the hon. Member will study the question from that point of view, he will find that there is no way out via reducing the status or the purchasing power of the working classes of this country. On the contrary, I shall argue that the opposite policy, which has not been tried, has a greater chance of succeeding.
Suppose that somehow we could increase the purchasing power of the
working classes. Suppose that, instead of this wage-cutting policy, instead of seeing how we could sneak 5s. or 10s. off the workman's wage, we set our brains to work to find some way by which we could increase the purchasing power of the working classes in this country, what would inevitably happen? You would have a bigger demand in your home market, and you would consequently have a diminution of unemployment. I am convinced that the policy of cutting wages by £600,000,000 per annum, which was what was done in the big deflation period, and which reduced the purchasing power of the home market by £600,000,000, is the prime cause of our unemployment to-day. If, instead of cutting wages by £600,000,000, we could have found some way of increasing the purchasing power of the working classes, we could immediately stop the unemployment rot which threatens to break up the British State. How can we do it? I know that I shall be out of order in making a complete series of suggestions, but I will mention one. It is a fact that there are to-day in this country hundreds of thousands of acres of unused land. Why cannot we give powers to the local authorities to seize forthwith all the unused land in their areas and offer the unemployed an acre each, if they will cultivate it, and so long as they cultivate it, allow them to continue drawing their unemployment benefit? If they could get, on the average, £25 per annum out of each acre, and there were 100,000 who, instead of hanging round street corners, and decaying physically mentally, morally and spiritually, were able to raise vegetables, how different the outlook would be! Suppose that they kept goats or hens and produced foodstuffs of any kind, suppose that 100,000 did it and produced £25 per annum each, the purchasing power of the working classes would be increased by £2,500,000 per annum in that way alone, and you would no longer be dependent to that extent upon foodstuffs from America or elsewhere—China for eggs or Denmark for butter.

Sir H. CROFT: Would you safeguard them?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Suppose the 100,000 could do that. Suppose that they were allowed to consume the food, and that
any surplus available they were compelled to offer to the local authority at a price to be fixed in advance so as to prevent exploitation.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Could that be carried out without legislation?

Mr. JOHNSTON: To a certain extent I think that it could. There is unused land in this country, and I know instances of it. There is unused land in places where the local authority could be given power, or be induced to use the power that it has, to seize that land and to set the unemployed to work on it. That would start the movement. I do not ask that the whole scheme should be settled in six months or 12 months: the ruins of the capitalist system will take a long time to clear up. But here is a way to produce more food and to give more employment. It would cost the British Government no extra money. All you would do would be to take away from the present owners, the landlords who cannot use the national heritage or who are refusing to use it, the land that they own, in order that it might be used. I want to draw attention to a remarkable figure which hon. Members may find in the annual Trade and Navigation Accounts. In 1924 this country paid £96,000,000 more for imported foodstuffs than it paid in 1922. We are more and more, as the years go by, becoming dependent for our food supplies on other countries. We used to pay for these foodstuffs by the products of our manufactures, but other countries are beginning to produce those manufactured goods for themselves. India is producing coal, China is producing cotton goods, and Japan is producing some thing else. Those countries no longer require our manufactured goods and our coal to the extent that they used to have them. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary for us to become more and more a food-producing country.
I suggest that the Minister of Labour, instead of bothering about futile and annoying class war Bills like the one he succeeded in getting through the House last week in order to take £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 away from the depressed and poverty stricken, should ask for the cooperation of all parties in order to set up a new social organisation in this country, and that he should begin by taking the
land which is not used, take it without a penny of compensation, or give the local authorities power to take it, and forthwith place on that land as many of the unemployed as are willing to cultivate it and to produce foodstuffs. Only by reversing the machinery in some such way as that are you going to get out of the present maelstrom of unemployment. The other policy of wage-cutting, of lowering the status of the worker, or of increasing his working hours, is no policy at all. If adopted, it would be imitated by foreign competitors. There would be competition in starvation, and the end would be ruin for everyone concerned.
I beg the Minister of Labour to give up the idea that he can even tide over the present period of unemployment by a wage-cutting policy. He cannot do it. This is not an abnormal period. It is the beginning of a new era. It is the beginning of a prolongation of unemployment. While I am in favour of the electrification of industry, and while I would gladly vote for the conduct of our industry with greater efficiency, do not let us delude ourselves that those things will cure unemployment. They would do away immediately with the opportunity for human labour. Unless we are prepared, with every increase of efficiency, to provide means whereby our unemployed can be given the opportunity, as nature meant they should be given opportunities, to produce food, to raise trees, to destroy slum dwellings, and to produce decent houses and clothing and shelter for themselves, and slowly to break up the capitalist system, there is no hope for us.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): The hon. Member is always interesting, and in reply to one of the points that he has made I hope to speak later. To start with, I wish to say a word or two in reply to the speech of the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). There is a formidable theological instrument in Scotland, well known to the Member for S. Ayrshire (Mr. J Brown), which is known as the Shorter Catechism. It is mild compared with the longer catechism addressed to me by the right hon. Gentleman. All that I can do. within the scope of human endurance and the length of time available, is to answer some of the points which he raised. Then I shall try to deal with one or two others
raised by other hon. Members. Let me deal at once with the question of Russia The right hon. Gentleman asked me why we were not willing to try to help trade with Russia to expand. He asked particularly why I personally was against the expansion of trade between Russia and this country. Let me say at once that. far from being against the expansion of trade between Russia and this country, I should be glad to see it expand to the greatest extent possible. When I say that, I must follow up the statement by saying also that I think many hon. Members opposite are under a complete misapprehension as to the true facts of the relations between this country and Russia with respect to trade. It seems to be thought by many hon. Members opposite, and by those who sympathise with them, that trade with Russia is stopped or hindered by action taken by the British Government. I can assure them that that belief is based on a complete misapprehension of the facts.
There are one or two assumptions ordinarily made by people who think that hindrances are put in the way of trade with Russia. It is assumed, for instance, that the absence of trade with Russia is due to the fact that recognition of Russia by this country is not complete. I recollect an hon. Member opposite telling me on one occasion of his experiences in Russia, and he mentioned that when he was somewhere near the Black Sea he saw a large consignment of American ploughs. He said to me, "Why should not we have that trade in ploughs with Russia?" I hark back to the assumption that the reason against our trading with Russia is that our recognition of Russia is not complete. It is perfectly complete. What was incomplete was recognition of Russia by the United States, and yet it was the United States which did the trade in ploughs with Russia. As a matter of fact, there is no incompleteness in our recognition of Russia. Then there seems to be an idea that we are keeping Russia out of the comity of nations, and that it is for that reason that trade is languishing. We are doing nothing of the kind. I cannot imagine any responsible person who would not welcome Russia on the League of Nations, if she would come there as a member willing to act in good faith and honesty and together with the rest.
Lastly, we are told that direct obstacles are placed in the way of trade. There is nothing of the kind. We have placed no obstacles in the way of trade with Russia. I say quite, distinctly that if it were possible for ordinary, normal, proper trade to be done between this country and Russia I would be glad to see it, but Russia cannot ask to be placed on terms in relation to this country more favourable than those enjoyed by any other nation abroad. She can ask, and she already enjoys, terms as favourable, but she cannot ask to be placed in a more favourable position than any other country. Let me point out the facts. It is not as though there is not a balance of trade in our favour which can enable orders to be placed here by Russia. In 1922 their exports to this country were four times the amount of the imports which they bought from this country, so that the credits were here with which to increase their imports from this country had they wished to do so. In 1923 their exports were five times as great as their imports, and, even if we take into account-re-exports from here, their exports to this country were more than twice both their imports from here and the re-imports of goods which came to this country in transit. They had a large balance of credits here with which they could have increased their imports had they wished. I am quite clear as to the facts, which are that no impediments are placed in the way of trade with Russia, and that if Russia wished to import goods from here she has the necessary credits with which to do it. I would only say exactly what I have said to M. Rakovsky directly, that if trade with Russia proceeded in the ordinary normal course, and if those who sold goods to Russia continued to be paid in the ordinary normal way, as is done in all sound trading, then trade would grow and would become bigger than it could become under any other method. I deal with this matter because the right hon. Gentleman put that; specific point. The answer is quite clear and to my mind quite decisive.
As regards unemployment generally, I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman and I approach the question from different angles. I think to-day that the difference in policy and principle between us is greater than I had imagined it to be before. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, would largely judge
us according to the number of men directly employed on relief works and schemes of that nature undertaken by the Government. I say candidly and straightforwardly, as a matter of principle and policy, that I do not look upon relief work as a virtue. I would not call it a vice, but the best you can say about it is that it is a pis aller, something to be applied if there is nothing else in order to meet an emergency. Judged even by that standard, I do not think we come off badly. I have not with me the actual figures of those employed on relief works started by the Government, but the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned an answer given earlier this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, that the number at present employed on relief works undertaken through Government assistance is 107,000, and has asked what was the number a year ago. As I say, I have not the figures, but I am sure the number was less. I cannot say for certain whether it was 20,000 or 30,000 less, but I will procure the figures and send them to the right hon. Gentleman. I can say, however, that the number on 26th July last year was considerably less than it is at this moment.
I say at once that I take no particular credit for that circumstance. Far from it. I look upon that method of dealing with unemployment as a palliative which is not good in itself. Under the Trade Facilities Act, some £13,000,000 will be spent in the ensuing 12 months. In regard to the Export Credits scheme, which is also more justifiable than most palliatives, there is at the present moment a Committee sitting to see whether it can be extended in order to cover what are known as catastrophic risks. Then there is the Unemployment Grants Committee. I am not certain where the figure of £1,250,000 which was mentioned was obtained, but this I can say, that at the present moment the volume of grants applied for is not complete. It never is at this time of the year, but I say at once, I think it is not likely to be so big as it was last year, because anticipations, if not coming to an end, are at any rate very much less. You cannot go on anticipating for ever, and further, of course, the burden on the rates is getting greater. As regards the Ministry of Transport, there again the
amount, for what it is worth—as I say, I do not regard it as a virtue—to be spent this year is about £3,000,000 in excess of what was spent in any year before

Mr. MARCH: That is on paper.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is not on paper but on roads and bridges. As regards land drainage, the Government have approved a policy involving £'200,000 a year to be spent on the draining of land so as to bring it into better cultivation. That is new, and is a programme for five years. Afforestation is on the same scale as before. As regards afforestation also, it cannot be extended indefinitely. I say quite advisedly that this expenditure of money is not a cure, and in the end is likely to be a burden. It is a burden on industry, whether it comes through the rates or through the taxes. If I were asked my opinion on the matter—and here I know I shall not have the approval of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer—I would say that the type of employment given by the Safeguarding of Industries Act is wiser and better and more economical than anything which can be done by relief works instituted by the Government.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Assuming that it gives employment.

Sir A. STEIEL-MAITLAND: That is assuming that it gives employment. On the other hand, while relief work temporarily gives employment, it is a burden afterwards. What is wanted, first of all, in this country is economy. Burdens on the rates and taxes prevent the recovery of industry, and anything we can do to secure economy, whether through rates or taxes, will in the end assist industry to recover, and will be better than spending more money at this time. I will not say that economy and efficiency are the same, but they are so nearly allied than they are almost inseparable. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) will not agree with me when I say it is important that goods should be made cheaper both as regards competition abroad and from other points of view. I can quite understand the view that if you ask people to work more hours in this country you may get a competition in longer hours, just as before the War you had a competition in armaments. The last thing I want to see is a competition in hours like the
previous competition in armaments, but I put it to hon. Members opposite that the obvious inference is that we should try to get some really effective agreement with regard to hours. I have been in correspondence with other Labour Ministers on this subject, and my real object has been—and it is an object which hon. Members opposite should try to achieve through their trade unions—to get an agreement, a proper effective agreement with regard to hours. Then you can stop a competition of that kind. But until that competition can be stopped, it seems to me absurd for this country to say, "We will allow our competitive power to suffer in the foreign markets which we held before." I am net asking that we should take away from other competing countries in the neutral market the trade they previously possessed, but it is a different thing to stand by and see the trade which you had before taken away from you. Apart from that consideration, all history has shown that to cheapen production means an extension of demand both at home and abroad.

Mr. JOHNSTON: In the United States, for example?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It means an extension of demand everywhere. The hon. Member for Dundee may think we are at the beginning of a new era and that one cannot judge from the experience of the old, but if he takes the ordinary charts of production, wages act consumption and traces the industrial history of the 19th century through, he will see that the constant cheapening of production was accompanied by an extension of demand which more than off set the cheapness, and without any question, the standard of living—with some ups and downs—showed on the whole an upward trend. The hon. Member Ins referred to America. America is a country where the greatest attention is paid to keeping down costs. I would be the last to—

Mr. JOHNSTON: Not in wages.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be patient. I was half-way through the sentence, and I was saying that the last item which I would like to see come down is the rate of wages. That does not apply to the actual cost per article of anything—
management, transport, wages, or any-thing else. You get in the type of factories that I have been through in the United States, such as the Ford works or other works, a high rate of wages, and yet a low wage cost, like other costs, per article because of cheap production. That is really what one wants to aim at in this country, and it does mean cheapness. It does mean bringing down costs with the hope that there will be an extension both of demand in new countries abroad, due to more rapid development, and of demand at home. I do not want to anticipate to-morrow's Debate—but that is one reason for making an inquiry into costs with regard to coal, and for the inquiry into iron and steel. I wish I could give the right hon. Gentleman the results of that latter inquiry. No doubt he would say we ought to have them by now, but I am sorry that we have not. That is the reason why I have said from the beginning, and why I say still, that we want to get agreement between employers and employed with regard to costs.
I spoke in a previous Debate about shipbuilding. Some hon. Members know quite well that negotiations are going on at this moment, and the result, I hope, will be to bring down the costs, but without bringing down wages. That is really what ought to be aimed at all round. We all agree, but the trouble is that while we truly agree upon this—and I think everyone on both sides of the House does agree upon it—in the end you get feelings growing hot, and trouble growing, and then there is not the same unanimity throughout in joining together to try to remove the difficulties, which are very often founded on old conditions, old misunderstandings, conditions which are not nearly so easy to remove in practice as they are in argument. That is the general position as I see it with regard to industry, and I have given the right hon. Member the principles on which I am working. He asked me about young persons, and there was also the point put by the hon. Member for Dundee, who suggested turning 100,000 men on to the land with an acre apiece. If he or anyone opposite or on this side has any scheme that will work out in practice, I can promise him quite sincerely that we will take it and go into it, not scoff or laugh at it or reject it, from wherever it comes, provided one can
really make it work. We may not agree as to whether or not it would work, but I take, the hon. Member's suggestion, and I' tell him the thought that crossed my mind, without necessarily rejecting the scheme, and that is that when you come really to get down to detail, will it work?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into what happened when the British Government gave local authorities power during the War to take over land and hand it over to allotment holders, and will he inquire how many hundred thousand men gladly took over that land, and what was the total product?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will inquire into all that, and I will be very glad, indeed, to go into it with the hon. Member. Perhaps I might tell the House, as I do not think they yet know, what we have actually started as some contribution to this question. This is new; I did not mention it before; I had it in mind, but it was not actually started, and I preferred not to say anything until it was started. We have begun to set up some training establishments for the land and also for men in the towns. There are only four to start with, two for the towns and two for the land. We have got one building for the towns, and I think we are far through with negotiations for one for the land; the other two, I hope, will be completed before we are back in November. The idea is a six months' course of training. This is for the young men. Perhaps when I am denounced by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) he will see that I have taken his words about young men to heart, which is, I hope, some relic of salvation.

Mr. LANSBURY: I would rather see the right hon. Gentleman's fruits than his words.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At any rate, this is as regards single men from 19 to 25 years of age or, in the case of ex-service men who have been away at the war, from 19 to 29. In the towns and in the country they will each get six months' training. In the towns, they will really be taught to be handy men. Many of my old experiences, when I walked about the different towns of the country making inquiries, taught me
that many of the men out of work, and in receipt of relief were quite unskilled, but when I got a man who was handy with his hands, I found that there were very few such cases coming right down on the rocks. I never found a sailor in receipt of relief, unless, perhaps, he had taken to drink, or had some other fault which made him not desirable. And that was simply because they are handy men generally. It makes all the difference for an unskilled man in most cases whether he is clumsy with his hands and has never been taught how to use them, or whether he has some sort of handiness.
What, therefore, we are doing in the towns is to provide that a man can come there and receive, in addition to his unemployment benefit, a training grant of 2s. 6d. a week, and he will get his midday meal as well, and six months' training to try and give him a start. When it comes to the country, the scheme is residential. There they will be put up and boarded, and get a certain allowance as well, and they will be taught agricultural work, which can fit them either for agriculture in the Dominions, if they go there, or for agricultural work in this country. That is the scheme which has been started. It is not on a big scale at this moment, because all these things are experiments.

Mr. STEPHEN: In which towns? In what part of the country?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The negotiations for one in the country I do not wish to deal with, as they are not quite complete, but the town in this case is Birmingham. It is the former building which we have in our possession in Birmingham, in Garrison Lane. The whole object, as I say, is to try and fit them, in the one case, as handy men, and in the other case to go on the land, either in the Dominions or in this country. In this connection I wish to refer to Employment Ex-changes. Everybody levels criticisms at them. Either they are too lax, or else they are too severe. One thing, however, which I do ask Exchanges to take in hand, and which they have done in an increasing degree, is the actual placing of men. During the first half of this year, in the North Eastern district alone, there were between 1,100 and 1,200
men from the towns who were in this way placed out with farmers, going on to the land. In the South East of England in a fortnight there were some 300 who were placed out for harvest work by the Employment Exchanges, but I am speaking especially of people placed out for a longer period on the land, and, as I say, there were between 1,100 and 1,200 town-workers up in the North-East area placed out. Remember you get them on the land in this way much more cheaply to the community, and rightly so, than through the more expensive training system, and, therefore, I would appeal to everyone to use their influence with farmers to apply to the Exchanges. This I can guarantee, that where farmers apply to the Exchanges great care is taken by the Exchanges themselves. We are also always pressing them to take more care, to see that men are sent whom the farmers will not regret having engaged, and who, in turn, may take gladly to the land again.
Training is a building-up process, and similarly with regard to boys. I was asked a little time ago to broadcast a speech about the openings for boys. I am sure the House will acquit me of any vanity with regard to the value of any speech of mine, but I think it was a. good thing for the people who listened in to hear what could be done for boys and girls in the way of trying to put square pegs into square holes and the round pegs into round holes. We got between 200 and 300 letters referring to the actual speech, and a large general increase of letters which, I think, were undoubtedly due to it. I can only, if the House will permit me, say that the credit for this does not belong to me, but to the officials under me who work at this particular business wholeheartedly, and one of the hon. Members opposite, who is on one of our juvenile advisory committees in London, knows very well how hard they work.
We get this type of case—I am sure that hon. Members will acquit me of wanting to pick the type of case merely for show—but this is the sort of case which I have got as a result. Mrs.—I have the name—wrote on 28th April from Berwick-on-Tweed, asking for help for her son, who had had a good education, and for whom there were no opportunities near
home. The boy wanted to go into an insurance office. He was put in communication with the Headmasters' Employment Committee, he expressed willingness to go to London, a good report was received from his headmaster, he was placed with the—Insurance Company in May, 1920, and he was also found a place in a hostel for a lodging. I have a whole list of cases to the same effect, and that work is gradually growing. Broadly speaking, I would say that the number of boys and girls who have attended the juvenile unemployment centres this year is 20 per cent. greater than last year, and I trust they will continue to grow, whatever Government may be in power. Here, in passing, I can only say again that the thanks for the unemployment centres— we may push them as much as we can— are largely due to the local authorities who have adopted them and helped us to run them.
Lastly, the President of the Board of Education and I have completed the Committee to inquire into the adjustment as between school and industry. The chairman, who has stated his willingness to serve, is Mr. Malcolm, whom I know well as one of the ablest of my contemporaries, and also one who takes a keen interest in this kind of work, and I hope the composition of the Committee will be announced before long.
I will again give the right hon. Gentleman opposite my principles. They are to aim at economy and at increased efficiency, and thus to keep down costs in industry and to promote its growth. They are not to spend the money of this country on experiments beyond what is needed for palliatives or relief works, which are not absolutely necessitated by the hardships of the moment.

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman, as is usual with Ministers of Labour, has left us to go back to our constituents empty-handed. I do not think, with all the elaboration he gave us of what he is going to do, that he will claim that anything he is going to do is of any immediate benefit to the unemployed clamouring in all our industrial constituencies for help just now. I dare say right hon. and hon. Members get rather tired of hearing about unemployment The emptiness, relatively speaking, of the House to-day, is proof that Members are rather sick of the subject. I do not
wonder at it, because all our talk appears to be but just beating the air. I have to sit here and get myself screwed up to say anything about the subject in any sort of sequence, owing to the fact that one feels it is almost hopeless, if not quite hopeless, to try to expect anything of any real worth from any Government. This is the third winter—it will soon be the fourth that some of us are entering upon—and those who were here three years ago remember the heat from these benches, and the corresponding heat from the other side the pledges from Ministers, and the sort of soft answer that came, telling us that slowly and by degrees this terrible problem was going to be effectively dealt with. And here we are going away, and for three solid months you are going to leave the unemployed to what the right hon. Gentleman has just been telling us. Then people get up, as one hon. Gentle man did a little while ago, and wonder that there is a bad spirit.
I do not believe, honestly, that I could hurt either an animal or a human being. I do not think I could, whether you believe me or not, but I am full of bitterness, and I have been all through this Session. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what he knows, but I will remind him of it, that in the district from which I come, in 1909 he and another Commissioner wrote a Report on that district, and districts akin to it. He wrote that casual labour, intermittent labour, was the most important factor inducing pauperism in that district. He. went on to say that bad housing was also a factor. I have read through that Report of the right hon. Gentleman. Anyone can read it in the Library. It is issued in connection with the Report of the Poor Law Commission. Can you wonder that a man who reaches my age commences to feel bitter and disillusioned when he has to sit and listen to the right hon. Gentleman talking the purely empty kind of platitudes he has talked this evening? I said against him once, that he sins against the light. So he does. It is a hard thing to say against anybody, but there is no one who has ever sat on those benches who knows the social, economic and industrial conditions of the people better than the right hon. Gentleman does. There is no one, if he sits down and honestly inquires into the subject, who knows better than he does that within this capitalist system which he is stand-
ing there to defend it is utterly impossible to deal with the evils about which he writes and speaks.
The right hon. Gentleman gave an instance just now of a boy who was brought from the country to London to occupy a position in an insurance office. Why, any juvenile advisory committee in London would have given you a score of hundreds of such boys. You have done nothing. You have just shifted one boy into a job, and kept another out. You have not increased employment in the country. A boy walked to my house yesterday morning, 16 years of age, just turned out of George Green School. Our juvenile employment committee is as good and efficient a one as there is anywhere in the country, but that boy is simply searching round, and does not know what to do. I suppose in the end he will be living on some sort of parish relief, and if he gets a temporary job, then a miserable allowance from the Employment Exchange.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It was not just bringing a boy from Northumberland to a casual job. It so happened all these cases were people who had got a special wish for some particular kind of job, and were fitted for it.

Mr. LANSBURY: That does not alter the point.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It alters the point to this extent. If you get people fitted for the job for which they have a particular liking, you are likely to get efficiency.

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman misses the point altogether. I invite him to get his very efficient officers to inquire, whether that situation could not have been filled a hundred times over by boys in London, who, equally, would have liked to find that kind of position, and are quite competent and capable of filling that position. It is non-sense to say there are not hundreds of boys turned out from the elementary and secondary schools of London who cannot find permanent, decent occupation, and it seems perfectly absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to stand at that box and solemnly take credit that, because of a wireless speech, he has had an application from someone in Northumberland who has a bright boy who wants to go into an insurance office, and, lo and behold, the
Employment Exchange has actually placed that boy in such an office! It is only playing with the subject; it is toying with it, and does not deal in any adequate manner with the problem we are now-discussing.
I want to say one other thing. An hon. Gentleman, whom I am sorry I felt obliged to interrupt in a maiden speech on a subject about which I feel rather keenly, a speech which, from his point of view, everyone here, I think, admired, talked about friendly relationship, and the sort of attitude of mind we should have towards one another on this subject. The longer I live the more bitter I become about all this, and the fact that this House is going away now for three solid months is enough to make the men who are tramping from Exchange to Exchange, from factory to factory, from workshop to workshop looking for jobs, direct actionists, Bolshevists, or any sort of revolutionists. By the fact that this House is leaving this problem practically untouched, you are forcing men, as you forced the miners and the trade unionists, to believe, that this House is utterly incapable of dealing with social wrongs, and utterly incapable of dealing with what is the most terrible problem of the day.
To come to one of the points the right hon. Gentleman made, and with which I do not intend to deal at any length, because I think one of our right hon. Friends is raising the matter again on Friday, that is, trade with Russia. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well what is the difficulty there. The difficulty is credit. The Russian Government is the only kind of entity in Russia that can buy the goods, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that the overseas credit and the trade facilities are not applicable to the Russian Government, because you say they have refused to pay their debts, and you refuse to negotiate with them as to how those debts shall be dealt with. That is the charge we make as to your stopping trade with Russia, because you prevented the policy of the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. R. MacDonald) being carried out. You rejected the agreement, and you have not from that day to this attempted to bring in any treaty, or make any other arrange-
ment with the Russian people as to how those debts should be paid.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am sorry to have to interrupt again, but the hon. Gentleman knows I do not do it rudely. The point I tried to make was that, judging by the actual trade, the Russian Government ought to have millions standing to their credit at the moment, if they wanted to use it.

Mr. LANSBURY: That matter, I understand, will be dealt with later, but I am not going to let the right hon. Gentleman ride off in that way. The Russian Government and the late British Government came to an agreement which was to have been put to this House for ratification. The present Government have refused to put that treaty to the approval of this House, with the result that the debt question, which is the outstanding question that the City puts up against the Russian Government, is still not dealt with. But this Government went a step further. The Soviet Government put advertisements in our Government publications, and because, as we were told, they have not paid their debts, those advertisements are not allowed to appear. And yet the right hon. Gentleman stands there and says they are not putting any obstacles in the way. I say their whole policy is one of obstacles, and their whole policy is one of pinpricks against that Government. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) spoke the feelings in your hearts about the Soviet Government. He said what some have not so much pluck to say. [An HON. MEMBER: "We all agree with him."] No, the right hon. Gentleman says that is not his policy. He says he wants to help trade. I am pointing out that the Government prevent trade being done, and I say that in the engineering industry, especially in the making of tools for harvesting and farm work, the Government are deliberately preventing men from being employed.
7.0 P.M.
I want to say something about the right hon. Gentleman's own administration, but, before doing so, I would like to say one word about the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for the Ayr Burghs that the working men were deliberately hindering trade because of trade union conditions, and so on. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman
and the Prime Minister put their fingers on the spot, as I think, with regard to unemployment. He himself said in the Debate, I think it was, on the 26th March, that the foreign trade was down by 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. He went on to say that this meant, on the present day lines of organisation and productivity of men, that there would be about 500,000 less men employed. Then he went on to say that the development of labour-saving machinery during the War had meant that we produced the same amount of iron and steel as before the War with 70 per cent. less men, and that there was also a saving of labour of 25 per cent. in the chemical industry. Whatever is the use of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs continually telling us that we must cheapen production? You are already cheapening production to such an extent that you produce more than you produced before 1914 with a less number of men. That is solely because of that factor in capitalist production which continually works: you cheapen production, you turn out more and more goods, and then you have a large number of men out of work.
Somewhere in the eighties there was a big conference. I believe Lord Balfour was one of the Members who attended it. I cannot remember the title of the conference. It had to do with inquiring into the remuneration of men and production generally, and it was established then that in the great staple industries of the country, even in the eighties, the productivity was so great, and was becoming greater, that larger and larger masses of men became unskilled men and parasitical workers living on the service of luxuries. The argument used to be put up that when you increased your production through labour-saving machinery other industries sprang up and absorbed the men who were displaced by the coming in of the machine. I believe at the beginning, say, 50 years ago, that perhaps might have operated, to some extent, but Karl Marx pointed out, quite 50 or 60 years ago, that the thing that has happened to-day would happen, and a man like Thomas Carlyle also pointed out in "Past and Present" that you would be choked by the tremendous power that capitalism would bring into being for the production of goods. That is where we are to-day.
The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I am coming to the one point when he may trip me up, and that is agriculture.
In all the manufactured commodities in every country of the world where there is stagnation, it is because their power to produce is greater than their power to consume. That cannot be denied one bit. Fifty years ago Britain had the markets of the world at her disposal. You had no competitor. To-day you have not only your own Colonies as competitors, but you have places like China and Japan and the Dominion of India, that are competing with you in some of the most important industries, and it is proved that all nations have been turning their attention, I think too much, to machine industry and industry connected with production of goods other than food. That brings me to this—I am not concerned very much whether you agree with me or not, but I am going to say here in this House of Commons—that this country has gone on a policy which has worked itself out in regard to looking to other nations to supply it with food. I am sorry the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) is not here, as I would point out to him that you are leaning on a rather weak kind of reed when you say you are going to look to the Colonies for the supplies which you will not be able to pay for from America. The Prime Minister put it thus. He said in one speech that what we have now to do, because of the things I have just been mentioning, is to send men to the Colonies to produce food there and to take our goods in exchange for that food. But it was pointed out to us last week in the rooms of the Empire Parliamentary Association that in the Colonies, so soon as they could produce goods for themselves, they intended to do so. They would follow the line of all the Colonies, the line of America and Canada.
That brings me to this perfectly practical thing, and I hope you will not rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because what I am now going to suggest can be done without any new legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. T. Johnston) asked about land and asked that the land of this country should be cultivated. Now I am confident—and most of you will be here when I am dead
and gone—that this country and Europe will have to grow infinitely more of its food than it has grown for the last 100 years. I am not at all sure that you will not, because of world competition and because of the competition of the coloured races, be driven, not the whole population to live on a lower standard, but a lot of people on the top to come down to a much lower standard. In any case, you will have to face growing more food in this country. You have got two schemes under which this can be done now without any more legislation. There are, I think, Development Commissioners, and there is still an Unemployed Workmen's Act on the Statute Book. If the Minister of Health had cared to do it, he could have set up in London, without all those Poor Law Regulations which were associated with it, an Unemployed Committee. I believe it is still in existence for London only. There would be one in every part of the country, and the proposition of my hon. Friend with regard to land could have been put into operation quite easily without any Act of Parliament at all.
T want to point out that one of the things I did during the War was to help men and their wives and other people to get bits of waste land here in London. I saw men, and not only men but women, turn the roughest bits of land in this city of London into gardens. Any of you could have seen it, in Walworth, Wandsworth and Poplar, and all over the place, and I cannot for the life of me think why that cannot be done now. If I were an unemployed man near a bit of land I should go and take it and see what happened to me after I had done it. If I wore among the miners and were younger than I am now, I should jolly well lead them on to the land and defy you to remove me. The land is here for the service of men. You ought to have every scrap of it cultivated to its highest extent. When you say to me that you must send goods to Australia to be exchanged for food, I say that we can produce goods to be exchanged for food here in this country, and you can re-settle men on the land of England much cheaper and much more effectively than doing it 16,000 miles away.
That is only one thing. The other is in regard to young men. I understand the right hon. Gentleman has got a
scheme. "By their fruits ye shall know them," and by his work I will judge him. I do not know what the scheme consists of. His colleague the Minister of Health has ruined—I will not say him personally, it may have been one of his predecessors who started it—one of the best schemes for dealing with unemployed men at Hollesley Bay. They have turned it into just an ordinary pauper colony, and pauper conditions to a great extent prevail. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen said nice things about me when I said I would not give any man money for nothing. I meant that I would not give him money for nothing if there was a decent honest job waiting for him to go to and he refused it. That is the limitation I put on that. In regard to getting men on the land, I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to give us the same pauper establishment where the rules will be such that no decent, self-respecting young man would ever go near it. If it is to be training, let it be training under proper conditions. You trained men to go out and slay their fellow men. You gave them fairly decent conditions; many of them for the first time in their lives had decent food and clothes.
If you are going to train men, you must take care that the conditions are such that the self-respecting men will have them. The thing that broke Hollesley Bay down was that there was no outlet but emigration. We tried very hard to get the then President of the Local Government Board to allow us actually to settle the men on the land, and we had a scheme whereby the ordinary unemployed would prepare and clear the land—and remember that is all they will do if you send men to Australia and Canada. They will only clear away roots and drain land and so on. We wanted them to do that, and at the same time train the younger men, the men perhaps who have just married, train them to become either smallholders or, on a big factory farm, workers. That scheme broke down because of the hostility of the then Liberal President of the Local Government Board, who in those days voiced the opinion of the House of Commons that even work should not be found for the unemployed. We have advanced a great deal since those days. Now nobody denies that you must find work for them in one way or other.
If you took this business in hand, and I am speaking not theoretically but from practical knowledge, you could train the men to become cultivators of the soil and bring the land of England back to cultivation, instead of leaving it to go out of cultivation as it is to-day. There are a million more acres out of cultivation than there were two or three years ago, and there are fewer men engaged in agriculture than a few years ago, in spite of all that the Minister of Agriculture told us the other night.
If it be true, and it is true, that we are capable of producing more wealth to-day, why should there be this shout for economy? If we develop our home markets why should not there be a higher level of life for the whole community? To me it is an amazing thing that you should argue, as it is being argued, that we must cut down here and there. The fact of the matter is that what has to be decided is how we can readjust the spending power of the nation. At present there is plenty of money at Cowes. There is plenty of money at Goodwood. There is plenty of money at Ascot. There are many garden parties. As I go through the West End of London I see there is luxury and extravagance abroad. The fact is that while wages have gone down, while the payment to the workers has been reduced since 1900, the payment to those who draw dividends, to the interest drawers, and others of that class, have enormously increased. Nobody can deny that! Instead of the shouting for economy, what we want is a better distribution of the wealth the nation produces.
During the century there have been various ways in which the nation has shown this—I mean that the workers have shared indirectly in the wealth produced. The people now get what is called free education, free parks, open spaces, free libraries, and lots of the amenities of life unknown 60 years ago. I say that the time has come when we have to develop that sort of policy ever so much further. I charge the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for education, and the Minister of Labour, who indirectly is responsible for all the adolescents—I charge them with neglecting their duty towards these young people. Long, long ago every boy and girl between the ages of 14 and 16 should have been kept at school and a giant been made for keeping
them there. Do not talk to me as to where the money is to come from. Hon. Members on the opposite side grumble when we talk this way. But they did not grumble at £58,000,000 for the Navy. Then did not grumble on the opposite side at a thousand millions for the "good old War"! The money is found if it is needed for destruction. We claim that you ought to find it for purposes of life.
If you took the boys and girls out of industry you would take 500,000 people off the unemployment roll at once. If you carried that a step further, and took out all the aged persons, men more or less worn out, and those suffering from physical disabilities you take another 800,000. We demand that these things shall be done now because the nation can afford to have them done. In conclusion let me read a couple of letters to show to the House exactly what ordinary people are thinking. The right hon. Gentleman thought it an extraordinary thing that he had got a couple of hundred letters in one day. There are many ordinary Members of Parliament who get scores and hundreds of letters during the week on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman's own Department knows the number that I send occasionally, and to the Minister of Pensions as well. I want to repeat something I said the other night. I want to hear of the debt that we owe, not only to the ex-service men, but to all the workers in the War. The country, however, owes a special debt to the ex-service men. It is just—how many many years since the War broke out? [An HON. MEMBER: "Eleven years!"] Yes, eleven years. Hon. Members of my own age and younger remember what during those years they said to the men: how they petted them, how they took them to their country houses, how they told them: "Never again!" I have tried to get the figures of the numbers in the casual wards on a given day. Apparently that request came a bit too closely to Questions, so I have not got it; but a week or two ago I did get from the Minister of Health the figures of those in the casual wards of the country. On one night there were 7,338 men, and, of those, 43 per cent. were ex-service men.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Would the hon. Member give the House the
information as to how the party opposite refused to accept 50,000 ex-service men into the building trades of this country.

Mr. LANSBLIRY: I am not quite certain that I shall be allowed to answer that question, but I might just tell the hon. Gentleman who put the question that it is not true. What I want to point ou—[Interruption.] I was saying that there were 7,338 men in the casual wards and that of these 43 per cent., that is very nearly half, were ex-service men. I do not know whether hon. Members know what a casual ward is like. I know, and the right hon. Gentleman knows, because, like myself, he has inspected them. It is a place where a man lies on a board, where in the morning he has to break stones to a certain size that will go through a grating, and where a decent man's heart is broken because of the task that is set him to do. He will get a little water, or just a little of what is called skilly, a kind of brown porridge, and then he is sent out to tramp to another casual ward. If hon. Members are not ashamed of that I am. I feel ashamed of it every time I see one of these men, and every time I see their women and children dragging along with them.
Here is a letter that I have had sent mo a day or two ago:
Enclosed leaflet (which please return) was given to me in Hyde Park when the King inspected us silver-badged men. I thought it might be useful to you. My service to the State was 20 years as a Volunteer, four years as a Territorial, two years in the City of London Naval Reserve; joined the Colours in 1914, and was discharged physically unfit in 1916. No one can say that I was not patriotic. My experience has taught me different now, and I can understand the reason they cannot get recruits for the Army and the Territorials. I have been discharged from a big City stores, who are on the King's Roll of Honour, after over 38 years' service, without pension, but with a small gratuity, on the score of cutting down expenses. Yet their profit was £60,000 net last year, showing an increase of over £4,000. I was discharged in July, 1923. After walking about for months trying to find permanent employment, which is difficult at my age. 56, I sent the enclosed leaflet back to the King, reminding him that instead of a foremost place in my own native city, I was tramping about trying to find employment, and could he help me to obtain work as all other sources had failed. The answer came back: 'I much regret' etc.—nothing was doing! So much for the beautifully-worded leaflet. I also wrote to Sir Steel-Maitland
explaining my position, and was referred to a branch of the Labour Ministry at Bays-water. After correspondence I was referred to the Labour Bureau, who can do nothing but try to find a job for me. We have both been trying for over 12 months. Last week my dole was stopped. I went before the committee, and they have extended it for a short period. It means that failing to find employment I must go to the Poor Law. I have lost my life's job and health through being patriotic. I daresay there are plenty like me. May I add that I have an excellent character both from my old firm and from the Army. I am getting 10s. disablement pension for my wife and self.
Then I should like to read the leaflet that this friend speaks of:
I am glad to have met you to-day, and to have looked into the faces of those who for the defence of home and Empire were ready to give up their all, and have sacrificed limbs, sight, hearing, health. Your wounds, most honourable distinction a man can bear, inspire reverence in your fellow-countrymen. May Almighty God mitigate your sufferings and give you strength to bear them. The welfare of the disabled in the War is the first claim on this country's gratitude, and I trust that the wonderful achievements of medical science, combined with the national voluntarily-supported institutions, may assist you to return to civil life as useful and respected citizens.
This is what I remind hon. Members of—
I hope that the splendid spirit of comradeship on the battlefield will be kept alive in peace, and that you may ever occupy a foremost place on all public occasions in life in the life of your city, borough, town or village. As your King, I thank you. We all honour you and admire the ungrudging way in which you have done your duty. That you will live long, enjoy with happiness the peace which you so hardly won, is the most earnest wish of my heart.
I have not the least doubt that the King, when he handed these papers round, meant every word that is contained there. But he is not responsible. The people responsible are on the benches opposite. [Interruption.] It may be that when my friends were on the opposite side everything was not done that ought to be done. That is no argument that the right thing should not be done to-day. What answer have you got to this man and to the hundreds and thousands like him? His Majesty tells the man that he hopes he will live long. Live long! What to do? To tramp the streets and to have his heart eaten out with a sort of feeling that after he has served all these years that all you can do with him is to allow him to exist or, the verge of destitution. I say that it
is this sort of thing that is causing all the unrest in the country. If I were treated in this fashion I should be among those who wanted to blow up, destroy, and smash up the present system by any means in my power. I am quite certain that there is not one of those who sit on those benches opposite who would ever suffer the ignominy, shame and destitution that thousands of these men are suffering to-day. It is utter cant and humbug on the part of Governments to send out leaflets like this and then to treat these men in this way. Throughout the country there are hundreds and thousands of them, and all we can do for them to-day is to listen to that paltry, piffling statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and then go away for three months' holiday! I hope the unemployed will persuade their unions to take the same action as they took about the miners, and force the Government to deal with the situation.

Orders of the Day — GOLD STANDARD.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Leaving the general discussion on unemployment, I wish to raise a subject which, in my personal belief, is more the cause of the increase of unemployment in the last few months than any other, and a cause for which the Government are directly responsible. Three months ago the party on these benches moved the rejection of the Gold Standard Bill. Everything that has occurred since—I speak for myself on this—is evidence to me personally of the deplorable results which have followed the error made then by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The opinion that we expressed three months ago is now ratified by Sir Josiah Stamp, who, in his capacity as one of the members of the Committee dealing with the coal trade that the Government appointed about a fortnight ago, added a note of his own, stating that this increase of our external prices was in itself sufficient to account for the special evils which have within the last few months driven the coal trade into its present position.
I find supporters of our party in the country are beginning to realise that their lives, their homes, and their wages are controlled by those who manipulate the financial and the credit and the currency policy of this country. In order that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer may deal with this subject, may I summarise Sir Josiah Stamp's argument, which really repeats what was said in these Debates three months ago? His argument is this: We have by this policy raised the value of sterling in dollars from 4.40 to 4.86— from slightly under 4½ to slightly under 5, a rise of 10 per cent. What does that mean? It means, putting it simply, that before this rise took place a British exporter was able by selling articles in the United States for a little under 4½ dollars to obtain £l. As a consequence of the rise, in order to obtain £1 he must now sell those articles in the United States for a little under five dollars, a rise in price of 10 per cent. Therefore, the result of the policy that has been followed is to make it necessary, if we are to receive the same returns as before, to increase our prices in foreign markets by 10 per cent.; but the fact is that in order to remain at the same competitive level as our rivals we cannot increase prices by 10 per cent., and we have to charge the same prices as before and take 10 per cent. less in receipts. Sir Josiah Stamp's argument is that the policy the Government have followed has meant that the coal trade and all our export trades, in order to hold their own, have to reduce their takings by 10 per cent. He points out that the coal trade were working on a margin of only 2 or 3 per cent., and that reducing that by 10 per cent. turns the margin into a loss of about 8 per cent., which the employers have tried to get back by a corresponding reduction of wages. That is the argument. What applies to the coal trade applies also to the iron and steel trade, to the engineering trade, to all the export trades, so that the result of the policy is to deliver a special attack, to inflict a special injury, upon our export trades, on those very unsheltered trades in which the bulk of the unemployment is centred at the present moment.

Mr. SKELTON: May I ask whether the argument applies also to export manufacturing trades, the raw material for which is brought from abroad?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I was coming to that point in a moment. I will get to that point. I cannot state everything all at once.

Mr. SKELTON: I only rose because the hon. Gentleman stated the argument quite categorically and incorrectly.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I shall come to that point. I was stating that there has been a rise in our external prices. I am coming to the internal prices.

Mr. SKELTON: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman does not apprehend my point. He has just said that all export trade is injured by what has happened. I ask him, does he think that statement applies to the export trade in manufactured goods the raw materials for which are imported from abroad?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I will answer that, specifically. The effect would not be so serious on, say, the cotton trade, because they import a large quantity of material; but the effect is serious on the coal trade, because beyond pit props and a few articles of that sort, the imports for the purposes of the coal trade are comparatively insignificant. I hope I may pursue my argument, as I wish to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer time to reply.
That is the position, and that is why the Government must answer the charge that the policy they pursue has been the final policy which has led to the increase in trade depression and to the industrial dispute to which that trade depression has given rise. I wish to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer one or two questions about the future. The perils of the future—in order to carry his policy to a conclusion—are more formidable than those which have already come upon us. He has decreed that coal trade exporters shall have a reduction of 10 per cent. in their receipts; but in the case of a trade like the coal trade, which does not buy much from abroad, but makes its purchases at home, they are not being relieved by any corresponding reduction in home prices. There is this reduction in external prices, but the corresponding decrease in internal prices which is necessary to carry out the policy of the gold standard has not yet begun, and it is very clear from what is happening in the City, from the policy of the Bank of England, that they do not venture to take the steps which its beginning will necessitate. The position broadly is this, that as a result of this rise in external prices
there is a tendency for gold to flow abroad and for the reserves of the Bank of England to be depleted.

Sir F. WISE: We are not on the gold standard yet.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: If the hon. Member will allow me, he will see that I am about to cover that point.

Sir F. WISE: A very important one.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: There is a tendency for gold to flow abroad and for the reserves to be depleted. If we were on the gold standard the proper remedy for that would be to raise the Bank Rate, but that is not being done. Instead, the Bank of England and the Treasury between them are having recourse to a series of temporary artificial expedients which, I believe, are quite without precedent in our financial history—I may be wrong, but I think they are without precedent. First of all, in order to pre vent gold from going abroad we have placed an embargo on foreign loans and on Colonial loans. As everybody knows, the Australian Government were told to raise their loan in New York, and not here. In addition to that, in order to bring gold into this country the bill rate is one per cent. higher in London than in New York. I do not know what the figures are exactly, but I am told on good authority that that in itself has attracted about £50,000,000 in gold from New York here. We have not returned to the gold Standard, we dare not return to the gold standard, we dare not carry out the policy to which it would lead; but in order to avoid doing so we are adopting these expedients, which means, practically, they this country has been turned in a few months from a lending into a borrowing country.
The question I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer is this. Within a few months, probably not later than autumn, unless American prices rise, these temporary expedients will break down, and he will have to adopt the ordinary policy which was explained to us as accompanying the gold standard— the maintenance of gold in this country, when necessary, by raising the Bank Rate. What is going to happen then? That is why I say this question is a serious one in view of recent events—I think a terrible one. What is the result
of a rise in the Bank Rate? The Prime Minister dealt with this very question about three months ago, and said that his critics were over-emphasising the effects of a rise in the Bank Rate. He said it amounted simply to this, that if a business borrowed £100,000 and the rate were raised by 1 per cent., that business would have to pay £1,000 a year extra, and that, he said, was quite inconsiderable in a business of the magnitude that such a business would be. That is true, but that is not the injury which is caused by a rise in the bank rate. The injury is this, that a rise in the bank rate is an evidence of the fact that the Bank of England and all other banks are adopting a policy of restricting credit. Restriction of credit means that manufacturers, employers—all business men depend upon credit—have to restrict their expenditure, there is a fall in the demand for goods, and that means a fall in prices; and in this case, in order to bring our internal prices on to the level of our external prices, it means a fall of about 10 per cent. What does the fall in prices mean? It means that every manufacturer is given notice that his stock is going to depreciate on his hands. It means that every man who is going to buy on a large scale will find it worth while to wait until the fall has taken place. That means unemployment, and in addition to unemployment and the fear of unemployment it means, as in the coal trade, that employers whose prices have been reduced by 10 per cent. will attempt to adjust the situation by a corresponding forcing down of wages. That is what we are faced with, and that is why the argument is that this whole movement has been premature.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Mansion House speech, said it was topsy-turvey of his critics to want to maintain depreciated exchanges in this country when every other country was trying to get rid of thorn. If we were in a period of expanding trade we might take these dangers in our stride, but our argument has always been that at this moment to adopt a policy which means bringing down prices by about 10 per cent. will lead to a series of indirect results, trade stoppages, and so on, which will involve a far greater loss than any gains from the immediate return to the gold standard. The fact that the Bank of England and the Treasury are not willing to complete the return to the
gold standard, but are adopting these make-shifts in its place, is a proof of the truth of the fact that the critics of the Chancellor were right and that the consequences of this policy cannot be faced. But they will have to be faced. And what is going to happen a few months hence if they are faced? That is why we say the future is more formidable than what we have experienced up to the present. In view of what happened last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot brush our predictions aside as they were brushed aside three months ago. We hold that it will become increasingly clear—opinion is moving to these views, more and more papers, supporting the Government, are taking the view that there has been a mistake—that the recent increase in trade depression, and the trade stoppages which have followed, are the result of a policy for which the Government are directly responsible.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made an interesting speech in which he has given a. personal view, but it is not the official view of any party in this House. It is a view which no doubt he has formed himself, but it is not the view put forward by any responsible political organisation represented in this House at all. Considering the influential propaganda which has been continually at work against the policy of returning to the gold standard, and considering the broad and crude misrepresentations published so widely, it is remarkable that no formal challenge should have been made against the principle of returning to the gold standard by any political party. No responsible leader at the time of returning to the gold standard expressed his opinion against it and no member of either branch of the legislature voted against it. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has lately expressed himself as being opposed to the gold standard, but when the matter was being discussed in the House he never gave us the benefit of his convictions on the subject, but remained in gloomy silence. He did not even justify in the Lobby his opinion or warn his fellow countrymen of the peril they were incurring, but remained absolutely silent.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: We voted against the Second Reading.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The party to which the hon. Gentleman belongs did not vote against the gold standard. They adopted the line which would give them the benefit of both sides of the argument. They said, "We are not opposed to the gold standard; what we are opposed to is the premature and precipitate action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer." Consequently they were in the position that, if at any time events were not prospering, they could say, "We always said that the return to a gold standard was premature," and when there was any favourable turn in our affairs they could say, "We were always in favour of a return to the gold standard." That is the attitude they adopted. I say that the principle has not been challenged, and I await its being challenged by any responsible party. As to the time, I gave to the House at the moment of announcing the decision of the Government, the full reasons why, if the change were to be made, it should be made at that moment. There was the position of the exchange, the favourable position and the conditions of the spring as against the less favourable conditions of the autumn. There was the fact of the expiry of the law and the necessity of passing a new law repudiating and reversing the old policy, which for five years and four successive administrations has moved steadily towards the resumption of the gold standard. Lastly, it was the case that if we had not taken this action the whole of the rest of the British Empire would have taken it without us, and it would have come to a gold standard, not on the basis of the pound sterling, but of the dollar. There were these reasons, and they have not been challenged by any responsible body of organised opinion in this country. There are a great number of financial experts and currency experts who have expressed themselves in this direction or that, but I notice that these great authorities nearly always disagree amongst themselves as to what the proper course would be or what relative emphasis to attach to the various conflicting causes which are at work.
The hon. Gentleman complained that foreign loans are being restricted. It is quite true that they have been dis-
couraged. The result of the discouragement of foreign loans during this period when otherwise we should be lending more than we could afford to lend, more than we have to lend, has been that a much larger fund has been liberated for capital issues for domestic purposes. The capital issues for domestic purposes for the first six months of this year have been double the issues for similar purposes in the first six months of last year.
The hon. Gentleman says that this is the cause of the trouble in the coal trade, and he calls as a witness Sir Josiah Stamp, who has lately joined the ranks of the currency experts. May I point out that the Committee on which Sir Josiah Stamp sat took no evidence on this subject. It is true that he himself gave us a personal opinion, but once you get currency fever you immediately attribute to it almost every human disaster and every human advance. I must say that I think this was very far outside the scope of the question with which that Committee were dealing. Sir Josiah Stamp himself signed the Report of the majority of the Committee, and that Report gave numerous reasons for the existing depression and crisis in the coal trade. In effect they are: the cessation of the Ruhr stimulus, the recovery of French mines and the development of new mines, the depreciation of foreign currencies against gold, the drop in consumption owing to the development of oil fuel and electric power, the poverty of our pre-War customers, and the large stocks of coal now on hand—for example, there are ten million tons in the Ruhr alone.
All these very serious and solid reasons were brushed aside, and the resumption of the gold standard was said to be the cause of all the evils which have arisen in the coalfields up to the present time. Of course it is very easy to use what is called the post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument, because the gold standard unquestionably affects everything to a certain degree. Therefore, it can be argued that every evil which has happened since the gold standard was resumed is due to the gold standard. As so many people are quite unable to understand currency theories, such a theory is very consoling, and it affords a very easy and comforting explanation of all the evils and sufferings of humanity.
His Majesty's Government, however, remain entirely unrepentant. The great step which has been taken in returning to the gold standard was a step of a permanent character, intended to affect definitely the whole basis on which our finances stood, and it must be judged not by the fluctuations which occur in a few months, or by the conditions which may be traced in this industry or in that. It can only be judged over a period of years by a general view of the long interests of the country, and of the interests of the country as a whole. It has fallen to us to carry to a definite conclusion what has been the consistent policy of every Government, and we have done it in a manner which has been attended with a considerable amount of success. We believed that immediately after the return to the gold standard sterling would recover its approximate parity with the gold dollar, and that expectation has been realised, because sterling immediately went above the gold export point, and it has remained there ever since, not even falling below it during the very grave anxieties caused during the last week. We were led to apprehend by the advice of many experts that a large exportation of gold would be forced upon us, but that did not happen. We made preparations against that contingency, but it has not happened. On the contrary, considerable quantities of gold have flowed into the Bank of England, which now commands £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 more than when this step was taken.

Mr. J. JONES: Can we have some over here?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will convey the hon. Member's suggestion to the proper authority. We wore told that it would be necessary to raise the Bank rate and we were prepared to do it, but that has not taken place, and we have not found it necessary to use the very large dollar credits on the other side of the Atlantic. General money rates have eased since the gold standard was adopted. In May the average weekly Treasury bill rate was £4 9s. 8d., in June it was £4 8s. 6d., and in July it was £4 6s. 6d., and last week the actual rate was £4 5s. Equilibrium has been established with the Australian and South African exchanges, which now stand at par with us instead of at a heavy premium and the general tendency in
foreign countries towards stabilisation in gold has been increased. For instance, India has been considering at what sterling rate she can stabilise her rupee. In France they are endeavouring to arrive at stabilisation and they have based the new gold loan not upon the dollar but upon the pound sterling. Lastly, the tendency which existed in April for the United Kingdom and the United States wholesale prices to approximate has been emphasised and confirmed. In April the United Kingdom figure was 162.5 and the United States 156.2. In June the United Kingdom figure was 157.7, and the United States 157.4. All these are solid and remarkable factors which should be taken into consideration in any attempt to appraise the immediate consequences of the very considerable financial step which the Government and Parliament decided to take.
8.0 P.M.
Of course, however, in any immense argument, in any very complicated and technical argument, it is always possible for ingenious minds, for powerful writers and eloquent speakers, to put forward very effective counter-cases; but let us see what it is that these inflationists and manipulators of the currency have in mind. I would particularly say, let the Labour party make a very careful searching of their own hearts as to where the real interest of the working classes lies in this matter. I take Professor Keynes as the best equipped of all the unorthodox school. He is a master of every aspect of this question, and discusses it with the utmost fluency and effectiveness upon all occasions, seasonable and unseasonable alike. What, really, is the policy which he has in mind, and which, if I can judge from the speech of the hon. Member for Keighley, he himself would support and would desire the Labour party to support?
Mr. Keynes tells us that a manipulated currency is the best shock absorber for the fluctuations of world trade. That sounds very well. "Shock absorber" is a very euphemistic expression. Let us see exactly what it means. Currency is to be the medium of adjustment—the shock absorber. How foolish to have any disputes with workmen about their wages! All you have to do is to inflate, to manipulate the currency. Immediately you depreciate the exchange, immediately you give a bounty on exports, immediately prices at home are raised,
and what does that mean? The hon. Member for Keighley was deploring a fall in prices, but what does a rise in prices mean? It means a rise in the cost of living, and what does that mean? It means a diminution, in exact mathematical ratio, of the real wages which are received by the working classes. We are told that by this famous method of shock absorption you will be able, simply by a process of depreciating the sterling exchange, to reduce the wages of the working classes, almost without their being aware of it, to what is considered the requisite point by the currency manipulator.
One admires the plan for the frankness with which it is stated, but one must also admire it for its facility. You can apply it to some other branches of our affairs. As an illustrative exercise, take the case of the grocers, a numerous and worthy class of citizens. They have been doing very badly, they find it very difficult to make both ends meet and to make a living. Never mind! They need not reduce their incomes, they need not reduce the wages of their assistants; all that is necessary is to alter the weights a little bit. Take an ounce off the pound! The public will hardly feel it, and, if they do, what are they going to do about it, anyhow? Again, take the case of the drapers, a very important and valuable class in our country. If they are in difficulties, why go through all the laborious business of economising, of seeking further efficiency in their methods, of trying to save here and there? Not at all. Let the Government come to their aid, and snip an inch off the yard! You would hardly miss it. It would be spread over such an enormous area that you would hardly be conscious of it at all.
All I can say is that these processes of credit inflation and currency manipulation, however unpalatable it may be to those who advocate them that I should say it, all partake of the same nature as these perfectly crude, simple methods of altering the weights and measures to which I have referred. They are altogether out of harmony with the sound and rugged principles on which British financial policy has been built up. The view of His Majesty's Government is that, whatever our troubles may be, it is much better that all classes should face
them with open eyes, that they should know the truth about what is taking place. That is what the gold standard does. It shows you exactly where you stand; it shows you what are the issues involved in any measures that may be proposed, and what the cost of those measures will be. People talk about the subsidy on coal. It is very objectionable, and everyone knows it is very objectionable, but, objectionable as it may be, it is greatly to be preferred to a veiled subsidy on exports achieved at the expense of the whole community, achieved by a deliberate depreciation of the British exchange, achieved by the sacrifice of the interests of the much larger purchasing classes, the importing classes in this country. At any rate, you know exactly where you are.
A manipulated currency sounds very well, but it is capable of being used, and misused, and abused, to the injury and detriment of every honest, solid interest, be it Labour or be it Capital, in the State. In the hands of an unscrupulous capitalist administration—if such there should ever be—a manipulated currency could be continuously used to undermine by the most subtle means the standards of wages and living of the masses of the working people. In the hands of an unscrupulous Socialist administration—if such there should ever be—a manipulated currency could speedily be used to liquidate every form of property in the land. In the hands of an incompetent administration—and, after all, every administration in this country is considered to be incompetent by those who do not form part of it, or who no longer form part of it—in the hands of an incompetent administration, a manipulated currency would provide infinite opportunities for a series of weak compromises the result of which would infallibly be meaningless and purposeless fluctuations in the exchange, leading to uncertainty and waste, to the detriment of business in every form.

Mr. J. JONES: No wonder they found you a job!

Mr. CHURCHILL: After all, what an absurdity it is to fix a standard of value and then to use that standard of value as the very means of procuring adjustments and fluctuations! The object to be sought, in establishing a standard of
value, is fixity and stability. That is why you choose it. Of course, you cannot get absolute fixity in this world, but, as far as is humanly possible, gold, much more than any commodity that we know, gives fixity and stability in regard to the currency and the transactions which are related thereto. Is it not almost a contradiction in terms to use this standard, when it is established, as it is, as the moving part in every change and fluctuation? That which was chosen for its fixity is to be made the very essence of fluidity, so that it is not a gold standard that they seek to establish, but a quicksilver standard.

Mr. JONES: Of course it is. You are mercurial.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very anxious to catch anything that falls from the hon. Gentleman whether wise or witty or otherwise. Of course, it is a commonplace that a depreciated currency, while it is depreciating, will stimulate your export trade. It is equally true that an appreciated currency, while it is appreciating, will pro tanto diminish and depress your export trade. If, instead of restoring the gold standard, we had regulated credit with exclusive regard to the interests of industry, without troubling at all about foreign exchanges, we could, no doubt, have kept our expo it trade continuously booming at a loss, until one exchange crisis after another had so undermined our international credit as to send the pound in the same direction as that in which the old German mark has gone. We have chosen a different course, and we await the day when any responsible political party will challenge the soundness, justice, and prudence of our decision.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: We have heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the speech that we all expected— a speech which fascinated the House, which, no doubt, will fascinate a large part of the country, but which, nevertheless, will not, in consequence of that, be true in fact; and, not only so, but it will not bring back into employment the 300,000 men who have lost their jobs, and it will not restore prosperity to trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has a very easy task in the method of argument which he adopts. He puts up a number of quite absurd propositions, and then proceeds to knock them down. He
attributes to his opponents ideas which are wholly ridiculous, and then shows how foolish they are, The persons whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer is stigmatising in this way contain among them, first of all, Mr. Maynard Keynes, the leading economist of to-day; secondly, Sir Josiah Stamp, the leading statistician of to-day—a man so important and so far-seeing that the Government themselves put him on this Court of Inquiry; and, thirdly, you have the statement of the Federation of British Industries, in which they say perfectly definitely that we are now experiencing the effects of the last appreciation of the pound, which has moved up some 10 per cent. in relation to the dollar during the past year, while the necessary counter-balancing reduction in costs in this country has not yet been completed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer throws all these eminent people into the position of ridiculous persons who do not know what they are talking about.
The view he puts forward that they and we are advocating limitless inflation, o) inflation at all, is absolutely false. What we are asking for is stability. Then he stated that Sir Josiah Stamp had no evidence before him in coming to the conclusion to which he came. That is absolutely untrue. The coalowners gave evidence that the restoration of the gold standard had lowered the international price of coal by 1s. a ton. That is a piece of definite evidence, which I presume the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not read. I have very little time left, and I only want to say this: When we put this forward three months ago we could only talk about tendencies, because we did not know exactly what would happen, but we said that the tendency of this operation would be to injure trade and create unemployment. We have now the definite effects before us, because what we prophesied has actually taken place, as has been recognised by these people. It is perfectly true that it is too late to restore the position as it was before. We do not suggest that we can go back from such a gold standard as we have to having none at all, as was the case at that time; but we do say that, first of all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a very grave mistake in choosing that moment for the restoration of the standard where. price levels did not justify it, and when
the lira and the franc were depreciating, and therefore aggravating the evils that it has caused. He admitted himself today for the first time that the temporary effect, at any rate, has been to injure the export trade.
What we say to him now is this: "You have got this, and you cannot go back on it, but there is no reason why you should make the situation worse by continuing the embargo on foreign loans and by continuing the high rate of discount, thereby still further injuring the export trades of this country. Now that you have restored this gold standard into being, the least you can do is to put it into being in a proper way. In that case you will induce the Bank of England and the financial authorities to remove the embargo on foreign loans, and you will not insist upon the discount rate being higher in this country than elsewhere." The result of that will be, of course, an outflow of gold, but that outflow of gold will be an adjusting force, and will tend to bring about equilibrium.

Bill accordingly read a Second time. Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow. — [Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (by Order).

Order for Third Reading read.

King's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Orders of the Day — MERSEY TUNNEL BILL [Lords].

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [4th August],
That, in the case of the Mersey Tunnel Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Question again proposed.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. James Hope): I beg to move, in line 2, after the word "that," to insert the words
notwithstanding the fact that the allowance of a term of eighty years for the repayment of certain loans is contrary to Standing Order 173A, this House, having regard to the special circumstances mentioned in the Report of the Committee, orders that.
This Motion is necessary in order to give effect to the recommendation of the Committee. The Committee, for the reasons stated in their Report, were of the opinion that for various reasons, particularly the nature of the work and its permanence, and the magnitude of the sum advanced, the period of 80 years should be allowed for repayment. That is outside the Standing Order governing these matters, but I take the responsibility of accepting the recommendation of the Committee, and I move accordingly.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

PREAMBLE.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 17 to 22, inclusive.
On behalf of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) and the other Members whose names are attached to the Amendments on the Paper, I move to omit from the Preamble this paragraph:
And whereas the Minister of Transport has determined to contribute out of the Road Fund towards the cost of the works by this Act authorised, a sum equal to one-half of such cost, but not exceeding two million five hundred thousand pounds, in accordance with the general conditions set forth in the First Schedule to this Act:
The Bill provides for the making of a tunnel under the Mersey to connect Liverpool and Birkenhead. It is promoted by the Liverpool and Birkenhead Corporations and the tunnel is to be managed by a joint committee. The top half of the circular tunnel is to carry four lines of vehicular traffic, either motors or carts or whatever it may be. The Bill originally proposed to have in the underneath half a way for tramways,
but both corporations decided that they did not want to have tramways. What we object to is that out of an estimated cost, of £5,000,000 for the construction of this tunnel no less a sum than £2,500,000 is to be contributed as a free grant out of the Road Fund, and there is a further provision under the Bill—which if it becomes law and is carried into execution is pretty certain to arise.—that if the estimated expenditure of £5,000,000— that is an engineer's estimate, and one never knew a contract that did not exceed the estimate—is exceeded, the Minister of Transport will further consider the payment of a further half of such excess. It is provided that the tunnel shall be free from rates and that it shall be able to collect tolls to the extent of £1,250,000, but not a farthing of that is ever to come back to the Road Fund. The reason I oppose the Clause is that here is a grant of £2,500,000 from this fund, which may possibly be £3,000,000 for the construction of only one mile of road while 100,000 miles of rural roads cannot get a shilling for their maintenance out of the fund. I say it is monstrously unfair, and I go further and say it was an illegal act to use this fund for the construction of a tunnel, and that the promoters of the Bill know that is clear from the fact that they have had to insert a. Clause, which one of the Amendments is to leave out, which was to get confirmation by the House of the grant of this money. I shall not detain the House long, because the case is so clear.
The Road Fund is exclusively formed, except for quite a trifling amount derived from income on investments, from taxes on motor vehicles. It is the class of persons who uses motor vehicles who alone provide the money for the Road Fund, and at the time that was initiated, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was distinctly stated—and it was so stated in order to obtain the large taxes that were put on motor vehicles—and pledges were given, that the amount contributed by motor taxpayers should be used for the construction, maintenance and upkeep of roads and bridges. That was the only purpose for which it could be used. [HON. MEMBERS: "This is a road!"] It
is a tunnel. [HON. MEMBERS: "A road!"] I am not going to argue that. Parliament is omnipotent. The promoters did not think so, or they would not have put in this provision to confirm the improper use of this money.
A further fact is this, that in the administration by the Ministry of Transport of this Road Fund it has adopted a system of dividing the roads into three classes. We have the main roads, or first-class roads, we have the second-class roads, and the third-class roads, which are called uncertified or unclassified roads. The Minister has adopted the practice of making a grant to the local authorities of half the cost they spent in maintenance on main roads or class one roads, and 25 per cent. on second-class roads, but nothing at all is given to the unclassified rural roads. There are something like, in round figures, 140,000 miles of roads in this country, 40,000 of which are unclassified. It may be that there are a few more. There are 100,000 miles of roads unclassified. On behalf of the rural roads and the rural ratepayers and taxpayers, to whom the maintenance of the roads has became unbearable, we make this appeal. The highway rates, owing to the increased use of motor cars, have risen from something like Is. 6d. in the £ to something like an average of 5s. to 6s. in the £.
The rural ratepayers raised an objection in the House of Commons as long ago as February, 1923. They objected not to the classification but to the allocation of the money subscribed by the taxpayers for roads. On the 27th February, 1923, the House of Commons passed this Resolution. It is this which we have not been able to get put into operation, and which I am asking should be put into operation now. It was passed by 190 votes to 58 and a number of Members of the present Government voted with the majority:
That, in the opinion of this House, the revenue raised by the taxation of mechanically-propelled vehicles should be adequate to cover the additional cost of road maintenance attributable to motor traffic, that the grants now paid to road authorities should be increased accordingly, and, since practically all rural roads are now used by motor vehicles, grants should also be allotted in respect of all these roads, whether classified or unclassified." — [OFFICIAL REPORT. 27th February, 1923; col. 1875, Vol. 160.]
It will be observed that we did not seek and we do not seek now to be freed from
the cost of maintaining the roads, but we do claim to receive out of the motor taxes our proper share of the increased cost that is brought upon us by the development of motor traffic. Experience has shown that, roughly, 90 per cent. of the traffic on the roads to-day is motor propelled. The horse vehicular traffic is only about 10 per cent. If we get what we say we are entitled to, namely, a proper share of the allocation of the funds, every one would pay alike. Our motor-car users would pay their share. The income under the Minister's control is an increasing income. Last year it was £16,000,000, and it will be more this year. I think last year it was £17,000,000. The Resolution that we passed two and a-half years ago provided that the Minister should take steps to meet the declared wishes of Parliament. He did not carry out the terms of the Motion that we should have our share of the fund for the maintenance of these unclassified roads, brought about by motor traffic from London and elsewhere. He did devote a sum of about £1,000,000 to widening and straightening and constructional repairs of these roads, but not one penny did we get for the 100,000 miles of rural roads for maintenance. We say that we ought to have our share.
We cannot agree to £2,500,000, rising to £3,000,000, going for one mile of road, when there are 100,000 miles of roads for which we do not get a shilling. I appeal to every fair-minded man in the House to say whether that is not a position that is absolutely unassailable. It cannot be attacked if anyone comes to a fair and unbiased decision. It is no part of my duty to attack the benefits of the Mersey Tunnel, but it is worthy of observation that the two boroughs at each end of that tunnel, Bootle and Wallasey, do not even think it worth their while to join in the scheme. I mention this in answer to any speeches that may be made saying that it is of national importance that this tunnel should be made. If Liverpool and Birkenhead want this tunnel, they should pay for it. They should pay for it because it is a benefit for their industry and their people. What use is the Mersey Tunnel to a person like myself living in Sussex and paying my own motor taxes there? Why should my money be taken to this extent? Why should we not
have our share who live in Sussex? Why should we not have our share for the maintenance of our roads, which are cut up by other people? That is the purpose for which the Road Fund was instituted. It is on that ground that, first of all, this £2,500,000 should never have been granted, that I object. If the sum had been less, probably we should not have made this protest. The grant of this money is probably an illegal act, and it has to be ratified by Parliament. We do not get anything. That is contrary to the intention of Parliament declared two and a-half years ago.
I only wish I know how the Liverpool Members wangled this £2,500,000 out of the Minister of Transport. We who represent every county and rural seat in England have failed to move that adamantine party. I hope that to-night he will see that we have made an unanswerable case. If he will promise that in future he will take care that we have our share of the allocation of the Road Fund for the purpose for which it is contributed, and for the purpose for which it ought to be used, namely, the maintenance of the roads—we do not ask for more than our share—I should probably feel inclined to say, "Let them have their £2,500,000," but if we cannot get our share—

Colonel WOODCOCK: You will play the dog in the manger.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: We shall certainly do our best to prevent this unfair allocation

Sir THOMAS DAVIES: I beg to second the Amendment. I do not go quite so far as my hon. Friend in opposition to this tunnel, because I do feel that the tunnel will be of inestimable benefit to the people of Lancashire and Cheshire, but I speak on behalf of one of the poorest agricultural divisions in England. In my division there is nothing but agriculture and market gardeners. There is not a factory of any kind and not even a brickyard employing 25 men. But we do not grudge these other people having the money to make this tunnel, provided that we get something like a fair share for our roads. I put the matter from the point of view of my own county, Gloucester. I have been on the county council for 22 years and have been a member of the highway committee, the whole of that time. We have in the
county about 3,000 miles of roads, of which 1,017 are main roads. The county council main roads are divided into three classes. For the first class we get 50 per cent. of maintenance and for the second class 25 per cent., and for the remainder of the main roads we do not get a penny piece. Of the 3,000 miles, only about 460 miles in the county of Gloucester, whether first or second class, get any grant at all, which means that considerably over 2,000 miles do not get a penny for maintenance purposes. We have something like 2,000 smallholders, market gardeners and allotment holders in my division. Many of them were planted on the land before the War, but the greater number have been planted on the land since the War, and by sheer hard work there are only from 4 to 6 per cent. of those men who have not made good.
These men feel this. When I go down to a meeting of these smallholders and market gardeners, as I shall have to do during the Recess, supposing I made no protest to-night they would say to me, "Were you in the House of Commons when £2,500,000 was voted for some place of which we have never heard?" [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the schools?"] I wonder how many school children today know where Birkenhead is? We have heard of Birkenhead in the other House, but not much about the town of Birkenhead. They would say, "Did you vote for giving £2,500,000 between Birkenhead and Liverpool? If so, what did you get for us poor devils in this part of the country?" How can you justify that? We cannot. So give every credit to the Ministry which looks after transport, whether under the present Minister or under his predecessor. Whenever I have been to the Minister—and I have worried him, God knows, many times without getting much out of him, and I have had deputations from his Department coming to my division and seeing the roads for themselves—they have always been most polite, and certainly if the present Minister of Transport had his way we should have had this grant long ago, but he has got the Treasury behind him, and this is a very important point.
I consider that the Treasury have no right to take this money and use it for any other purpose except for roads. Constitutionally, when an Act of Parliament is passed imposing a certain tax upon a cer-
tain proportion of the people, and only upon that proportion, for one express purpose, making, maintaining and imporoving roads, they have no right to use it for unemployment or anything else. I have one of the poorest divisions in England. It is more than half the County of Gloucester, and when the Minister rises I hope that he will be able to say "because of the poverty of that part of the country, and because of the want of any maintenance for the 100,000 miles of rural roads, he will give some relief. You people here in London send your vans all over our roads, you can see Harrods and Maples vans and the vans of everybody from London. If people move their furniture or transfer from one part of the country to another, the vans come over our roads. Lyons tea and all the other things which come from the big towns come over our roads. This is very hard on our poor people. They are poor people. Many of these smallholders are getting less than an agricultural labourer, and I ask the Minister to consider seriously whether he cannot satisfy our people by realising at last that the Road Board Fund is not for the big towns and main roads only, but that a certain proportion is due to the poorer parts of the country. If he will do that I do not care twopence whether those who are concerned get this Bill or not.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): Considering the strength of their feeling on this matter, my two hon. Friends have moved and seconded their Motion in very moderate terms. As a county councillor myself, as one who for some time was a rural district councillor, I do appreciate the state of things in the rural districts. I know how difficult it always was in the rural districts to make the two ends meet, and how difficult it was to persuade one's constituents in the rural area that so much money should be spent on road communication. So it is not, believe me, from any want of sympathy that more money has not been given to roads in the rural areas. I may point out also, although it does not strike my hon. Friends at present, that two years ago, when I occupied the position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, I was the first person to initiate the policy of some money, at any rate, being given to rural roads. It may not have
been given exactly in the form which my hon. Friend would have wished, but at any rate the result has been that within the last few years £5,000,000 more has been available for rural road purposes than ever before was given and I think that my hon. Friends ought to bear that in mind when considering this question. When this project of the Mersey Tunnel was brought before me, the question I had to ask myself was, Is this a project which one could justify in one's own mind as a project to which one could devote a large sum of money from the traffic and the communication point of view? I went into the matter very carefully, and it seemed obvious that it was a project which could be justified in one's own mind, and, what is perhaps much easier, could be justified in this House.
What does it do? It will, when completed, afford a very magnificent artery of trade between Lancashire and Liverpool on the one side, and Birkenhead, Cheshire and North Wales on the other. It will help the traffic in the south very considerably by enabling it to avoid the congested areas of Manchester and Salford It will give immediate employment in Liverpool and the surrounding districts, not only to those resident in the district but also to some extent to the steel and allied trades, which will receive a much needed stimulus from the creation of this tunnel. Remember this, too. It will undoubtedly benefit the whole country, because if you benefit Lancashire you must benefit the whole country. It will benefit the whole country by enabling commercial people to move much more quickly and far more cheaply from one side of the Mersey to the other. Therefore. I had no doubt that I was doing the right thing, and I still think that I was doing the right thing in allocating this sum of money from the road point of view. I was not prejudging the issue. All that I said was, "If Parliament agrees to this project going through, I will find the money," obviously subject to the consent of Parliament after the Bill was passed.
The opposition to this Bill on the ground that a grant has been promised from the Road Fund to the detriment of other claimants for assistance from that fund is not justified, I think. Contributions are made from the Road Fund towards the maintenance of roads on a
generous scale, and there are traffic improvements which are overdue if we are to meet the growing demands of road traffic, to which a contribution from the Road Fund is proper and reasonable. Of such major improvements, the Mersey Tunnel is, in my opinion, one of the most important.
At the same time, I have for some time realised the feelings of my hon. Friends representing rural districts, with whom I have been in conference, in view of the increasing wear on their roads caused by motor traffic, and I have been considering for some months past how far I could go in meeting their legitimate demands. I am now in a position, with the consent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to announce further provision for their assistance. It must be realised, however, that claims on the Road Fund are very heavy and are growing. The financial position is that, while we have a considerable cash balance in hand, the whole of that money has been promised to works which are already approved and in practically all cases already commenced.
Looking forward, the position is that, after making allowance for the necessary provision for Class 1 and Class 2 roads, and other calls on the Road Fund, including the existing rate of provision for the improvement of roads in rural areas, the balance of the annual receipts of the Fund, including estimated increases, is required for existing commitments up to 1930-31. In view, however, of the real needs of the rural districts, it is proposed to increase the already large provision I have made by another £750,000 next year. It is anticipated that this money will be available, partly owing to the slower rate of progress of the important new works than was originally estimated. This new provision for rural roads will be available for unclassified roads, and I propose that every authority essentially rural in character, including certain counties and urban districts, shall have an opportunity of benefiting from this special allocation. This assistance will, however, be given only to specified work of definite value; for example, strengthening, surfacing or tar spraying, as distinct from ordinary patching and maintenance.
The grant will not exceed 50 per cent. of the estimated expenditure, and will depend upon the extent of the improvement. For works of a temporary character, such as re-surfacing and tar spraying,
it will be at the 25 per cent, rate usual for second-class roads. No condition will be attached that on completion of the works the road shall be taken over by the county council as a main road. That last sentence is of considerable importance from the rural district council point of view. Many hon. Members rather thought that the grants had been by way of a bait or bribe to induce the rural district councils to give up their roads and hand them over to county councils. I do not know whether my statement has gone as far as my hon. Friends would wish. What emerges is this, that next year £750,000 extra will be available in rural areas for unclassified roads. I think my hon. Friends will agree that that is a very considerable advance on what we have done in the past, and I hope they will now withdraw their opposition and allow the Bill to pass.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Do I understand that all purely rural areas will be entitled to some of that money?

Colonel ASHLEY: Let me read the statement again. The money will be available "for unclassified roads and I have proposed that every authority essentially rural in character, including certain counties and urban districts, shall have an opportunity of benefiting from this special allocation."

Mr. HURD: In addition to the special grant for improvement?

Colonel ASHLEY: Yes.

Sir LESLIE SCOTT: Perhaps the opponents of the Bill, having heard the speech of the Minister, may see their way to withdraw their opposition? Perhaps the House will allow me to put that question to them, and then, if its answer is, as I hope it may not be, in the negative, allow me to go on with my speech.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I rise at once to thank the Minister for what he has said. As I stated, what I wanted was that the roads in the country districts should get a fair share of the Road Fund. In view of the Minister's statement, I do not propose to fight the Bill any further. What the Minister has done meets my views, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. BASIL PETO: rose—

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): If the hon. Member makes a speech, the Amendment cannot be withdrawn.

Mr. PETO: I really wish to point out that this new grant of £750,000 seems to me to be hampered by practically the same restrictions as the allocation of the £5,500,000 of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke earlier in his speech.

Mr. SEXTON: On a point of Order. Has the speech of the hon. Gentleman any relevance whatever to the Bill before the House?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have not yet had an opportunity of listening to the arguments of the hon. Member.

Sir L. SCOTT: On a point of Order. Is the House right in understanding that the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. B. Peto) is asking a question and not making a speech?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member intervenes the Amendment cannot be withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: May I make a suggestion? If the hon. Member for Barnstaple wishes to discuss this matter, at greater length, an opportunity will be afforded on the Third Beading of the Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is so. The hon. Member will have another opportunity of discussing the merits of the Bill on the Motion for the Third Reading.

Mr. PETO: I thank you, Sir, for your suggestion, and I shall be pleased to take that opportunity.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Are we to understand that tar-spraying is included in the terms of the Minister's offer?

Colonel ASHLEY: I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to read my statement. I cannot go into small details.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I beg to move, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."
I am extremely glad that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) withdrew his Amendment on the Report stage. Had he not done so, it would have been my duty, on such an occasion as this—a very rare occasion—to offer some advice to the House. I am in no way concerned with the merits of the Bill, but I am concerned with the procedure of the House. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member was one which, if persisted in, would have been fatal to the Bill. It was made on the Report stage of the Bill, while, if it ware made consistently, it should have been made on the Second Reading of the Bill. It was hardly fair to the promoters of the Bill that, after they had obtained the Second Reading and after this Bill had gone through Committees of both. Houses, a Second Reading point should have been raised on the Report stage. Of course, if it was only raised for the purpose of eliciting a statement of policy from the Government, there is no objection to that course. But I think it necessary on this occasion to put in a word of warning—in case a similar point should arise on a further Bill—that it is really not carrying out the spirit of Private Bill procedure to raise on the Report stage a matter which should have been taken on Second Reading. However, as the hon. and learned Member has not pressed his Amendment to a Division; and as it has only been the means of eliciting a statement, I make no complaint. It is only in view of what may happen on another occasion that I think it necesary to put in this warning.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: On behalf of the agricultural Members of the House I beg respectfully to enter a protest against what the Chairman of Ways and Means has said. My Amendment, I submit, was absolutely in Order and could not have been ruled out of Order. So far as the question of raising the matter on the Second Reading of the Bill is concerned, I and those Members who act with me have not the slightest notion that such a provision was in the Bill, and it was only when it came to our notice that we took this action. I adopted a similar course some years ago in regard to a Bolton Corporation Bill on the Third Reading, without any such protest being made, and we knocked out the Clause.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. B. PETO: In view of the fact that the Amendment proposed on the Report stage by the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) has elicited an important statement from the Minister of Transport, I desire to intervene on the Third Reading of the Bill. I would point out that the main protest of my hon. and learned Friend against the administration of the Road Fund was that the rural roads which were damaged by motor traffic circulating throughout the whole country, received no grant whatever from the Road Fund for maintenance. I under- stood the right hon. Gentleman to indicate that there would be an allocation of £750,000 as a set-off to the £2,500,000 which is to be granted to the great and wealthy Corporation of Liverpool in aid of their Mersey Tunnel, but this grant is to be hampered by the condition that it must be spent on the improvement of roads and on working them up to the standard of second class or first class roads. In that respect the concession is unsatisfactory. We say, broadly speaking, that the rural roads are adequately maintained for the traffic which they were constructed to bear, and it is only when heavy traffic, which comes from outside the rural districts, cuts them up that this heavy burden is involved.

Mr. SEXTON: May I ask your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Has a discussion of rural roads anything to do with the Bill before the House?

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think indirectly it has.

Mr. PETO: I will satisfy the hon. Member that what I am saying has a very direct bearing on the question because if the Road Fund is to be raised for one specific purpose to the extent of £2,500,000, then we must expect to get more than the concession we have received from the Minister of Transport, hampered as it is by the restricting words which the Minister read to the House. As the Minister said in his own argument, the Road Fund was pledged up to 1931. They had no money for rural roads, but they had £2,500,000 for Liverpool to construct a tunnel. This Measure contains the most amazing provision I have ever seen in a Bill. It is not like an English Act of Parliament at all, but
seems to belong to a totally different order of legislation. We are often told by hon. Members that if this country were to adopt another fiscal policy we should have log-rolling and all that kind of thing. Here we find a Bill passed through the House of Commons which enables the Liverpool Corporation for 20 years to levy tolls on the use of this road tunnel under the Mersey. Even a hearse has to pay 3s. 6d. every time it goes through. To whom is this paid? It is to be paid to the Liverpool Corporation until £1,250,000 have been accumulated. How is the tunnel to be constructed? Out of the fees paid by motor car users all over the country. I do not think that is legislation on the lines to which we are accustomed in this country, and I think it is an evil precedent that one great corporation should be able to raid, not the Exchequer but, worse, a fund accumulated by heavy taxation on the motor users of the country. This money was intended for the purpose of maintaining and improving the roads of the country, and this portion of it is now to be allotted for one specific purpose and in one specific spot. I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead raised a protest, and I am glad that protest has been effective to a certain extent, though not to the extent I should have liked. At any rate, something, even though it is subject to conditions, is to be given to the rural roads, but we shall not be satisfied until we have a fair share of the Road Fund to which we all contributed—not for the improvement of the rural roads, so that they may be rendered fit for traffic for which they were never originally intended, but in order that they may be maintained against the constant and increasing depreciation caused entirely by outside traffic. That is the principle we shall maintain until we have got justice for the rural districts in this matter.

Major CRAWFURD: I recognise that the House is prepared to give a Third Reading to this Bill, and that the promoters are anxious to have their fears allayed and the Bill safely through, but I wish to put one consideration which arises, I think, not inappropriately on this Debate, which intervened in the discussion on unemployment. I would like, if I can, without incurring the censure of
the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton), to make two brief observations on what has already fallen from the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley). I agree with him that any attempt to divert these funds to other purposes would be a breach of faith with those from whom they have been raised. The hon. and learned Member referred to the perfectly clear statement of the position which was made in 1909 by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). During the War these funds were diverted, but the statement made in 1909 was strengthened by the fact that in 1920, when these funds were again put to the use for which they were originally intended, the bargain that was made with those who contributed to it was in a sense reaffirmed, and I think it would be a breach of faith if anything else were done with the money. Secondly, I am sure that everybody will recognise that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have always shown themselves sympathetic to the interests represented by the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead, and we are perfectly sure that the relief which has been announced and any further relief will be due to their efforts solely.
I want to draw attention to the way in which this £2,500,000 has been allocated for this purpose. In the Memorandum which was circulated by the promoters of the Bill there is a paragraph which points out that the work will provide employment for the unemployed. Anybody who knows the divisions of Liverpool and Birkenhead will realise at once the immense value of an undertaking of this kind. Anybody who has suffered the lack of amenities on the existing Mersey Tunnel or who has endeavoured to cross on the existing ferry boats or to get a vehicle across on the existing ferry boats for that purpose, will realise that an undertaking of this kind will not only be a convenience and give employment, but will be a wealth-producing agency practically for ever. Therefore, of course, it is in no sense in opposition to the undertaking that I am speaking, but I want to draw attention to the statement that this undertaking will provide employment for a large number at present on the dole,
and, which is equally important, will involve large orders for the steel and other industries.
The Mersey Tunnel is not the only undertaking of this kind which would provide employment in the iron and steel industries. The hon. Members above the Gangway on this side of the House earlier to-day have been urging that the Government should do more in this direction. Let us consider what has happened. A sum of £2,500,000 is going to be raised by the districts concerned, and a similar sum will be contributed as a grant by the Ministry of Transport, but because this work is of such capital importance, an exception has been made to the Standing Orders of this House to enable these localities to borrow for a period of 80 years; that is to say, it is recognised that, more than most undertakings of this kind, this is work of a capital nature which will continue to produce revenue. Nobody would have contended for a moment that that £2,500,000 raised by the localities should have been paid out of the annual revenue derived from the undertaking, and I am going to suggest that the claims of the hon. and learned Member for Fast Grinstead and his colleagues could he easily met in a more generous spirit than they have been if the right hon. Gentleman would have a little courage and a little more vision and try to impress upon his colleagues in the Cabinet that through the Ministry of Transport there could be made a very great contribution to the grave unemployment problem with which we are faced.
Some months ago. during the course of discussion on the Ministry of Transport Vote, I made the suggestion that a portion of the Road Fund should be capitalised, and I want now to remind the House that in 1909, when the Road Board was originally set up, there was a provision in the Finance Act of that year to the effect that £200,000 of the Road Fund could be used for the purpose of obtaining a loan. The Road Fund itself amounted in the first year to £600,000; in other words, one third of it was to be devoted for the purpose of raising a loan out of the total revenue, and my contention is that in a work of this magnitude the contribution which is made from the Road Fund should be made by way of loan and not by way
of contribution out of the annual revenue. Further than that, if that principle were followed, there would be more available for rural roads—and everybody on all sides agrees with the case so persistently and patiently made out by hon. Members, chiefly on the other side—and if, Bay, a third of the total fund were so utilised, not only capital works like the Mersey Tunnel, but other large undertakings could be put in hand, and we could at this period make a very considerable contribution to the unemployment problem, and also hasten forward works all over the country which are very badly wanted.

Mr. HURD: Perhaps the House will allow me, in a few sentences, on behalf of the Rural District Councils Association—of which I have the honour this year to be President, representing rural district councils in all parts of the country, some 500 or 600 in number—to say to the Minister that we appreciate his action as explained in his speech. After all, the Minister is only carrying out what was the expressed mandate of the House in 1923, but, more than that, he is carrying out the declaration made by his own colleague away back five years ago, when the Home Secretary of to-day told the House that this Road Fund was to be used, not merely for the improvement, but for the maintenance of existing roads. Up to this point, 171 of our rural district councils have had nothing whatever from this Road Fund; 50,000 miles of unclassified roads have had nothing at all. That is being remedied.
I should like very much to make sure that this money is really going to be available for the reduction of rural district council road budgets in respect of maintenance where that maintenance is of an improving character. The Minister does not respond to that, but upstairs, when we had the good fortune to have him in the Committee, we understood that that was what was moving in his own mind. We feel that the burden thrown on our rates is an impossible burden, and it does become the duty of the Minister, in carrying out the mandate of the House, to see that some fair share of this fund should come to us in the reduction of the road budget, in so far as the maintenance is of an improving character. I would also remind the right hon. Gentleman how strong is the feeing
throughout rural districts, as well as amongst agricultural Members in this House, that we will resist to the utmost any diversion of this Road Fund to electrical or other purposes which have nothing to do with the maintenance of the roads, and we earnestly hope in that matter we shall have his support.

Mr. RYE: I do not intervene in this Debate for the purpose of prolonging this discussion, although I have very strong views on the subejct. But I rise to ask a question. I want to know whether, in the event of this tunnel being converted, in part, into a railway, which can obviously be done, if we refer to paragraph 4 of the First Schedule, that there will be sufficient road left for the use of motorists. Provision is made in the First Schedule that
In the event of tramways or railways being at any time laid through the tunnel a sum of £500,000 shall be repaid to the Road Fund at the date of the commencement of the construction of such tramways or railways.
When we appreciate the fact that an less than £2,500,000 is to be paid out. of the Road Fund for the construction of this tunnel, a sum which may be increased in certain circumstances, as set out in the First Schedule, it is important to know whether or not there will be sufficient room for motorists.

Colonel ASHLEY: The answer is in the affirmative.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: There is one observation I want to make. I must say, speaking as a Member who is not unduly interested in the Mersey Tunnel, I am rather perturbed at the course of the Debate to-night. I cannot think it can be wise that the House should allow its judgment as to the wisdom or unwisdom of using the money of the Road Fund for the Mersey Tunnel to be too much deflected by whether other money is used for quite different purposes. I think that the cross-examination to which some hon. Members have tried to put the Minister in regard to a matter entirely alien to the Mersey Tunnel is an extraordinary method of using the procedure of a Private Bill. We are really here considering, aye or no, Shall the money of the Road Fund be used for the Mersey Tunnel? If it be right to use it for the Mersey Tunnel, the Bill should have the Third Reading. Everybody from all sides of the House
has admitted it should be so used, and yet hon. Members, one after another, say, "We are willing that this good work should go on, on condition that you will give us a concession for something else." That is the way it has struck me, taking a perfectly independent line.
If the House is right in paying this money for the purpose of the Mersey Tunnel, while the Minister is perfectly entitled to satisfy hon. Members' fears on other matters, I say that to cross-examine the Minister on a matter which ought to be raised on some separate occasion, seems to me a wrong method of dealing with the matter of a Private Bill of this sort. There is one other observation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] If hon. Members are agreed, so much the better, but five or six hon. Members have spoken from the other side, and I intend to say what I wish to say. I have been impressed by what has been said by the Chairman of Committees, that this point has been raised on the very last stage of the Bill. The merits have been considered in Committee and the Bill has been approved. It is in the interest of Liverpool and of the nation. Yet we are asked to spend a long time in discussing irrelevant matters about rural roads, and when we speak on the question of the Mersey Tunnel, those who have spent so much time on irrelevant matters call out "Agreed!"

Sir L. SCOTT: May I appeal to the House to give the Bill the Third Reading now? [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] It is a matter of real national importance, because of the assistance it will give both to the export trade and to the import trade.

Mr. HAYES: I would like to add, from this side of the House, our tribute to the help we have had from the promoters and the interested parties. We are convinced that when the Bill is put on the Statute Book, it will be a real asset, not only to the people of Lancashire and Cheshire, but to the nation as a whole.

King's Consent, on behalf of the Crown and on behalf of the Duchy of Lancaster, signified.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Sir ROBERT SANDERS: May I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give us a little explanation of this Bill? I think practically all stages have gone through without anything being said about it, although it is an important Bill.

The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): In reply to my right hon. Friend, I would like to observe that this Bill is, I might almost say, a legacy from the Labour party. During the tenure of office of my right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary, delegates were sent to Geneva, in order to discuss this question of dangerous drugs. The result of that delegation was that a Convention was arrived at which was signed by the delegates. We cannot ratify the Convention without a Bill being passed by this House, and the time for the expiry of signatures of the Convention is 30th September. We want, if possible, to ratify the Convention as soon as possible after the 30th September, and if we wait for this Bill until the House meets again we shall be too late so far as that period is concerned, and therefore we want, if possible, to get this Bill through as soon as possible. I do not know whether hon. Members would like me to explain. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!" "Yes!" "Agreed!" "Go on!"]

Mr. J. JONES: They know what is in it all right. It is only drugs, and they are used to them.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Although it is an important Bill, it is a small Bill. It only amends, a former Act to a very slight extent. What is does is to include coca leaves under a former Act. They are the real basis of cocaine. We place them in the same category as raw opium. Hon. Members will find that in the first Clause.
In the second place, we are relaxing the rule that makes people mark small packages of opium, because it has been found that where these packages are
marked it draws notice, and people steal these packages. I will sit down—[HON. MEMBERS: "GO on!" and "Agreed!"] The House seems to be divided on the subject. Perhaps I may say that Clause 5 allows the League of Nations to make up its mind whether a so-called drug can be improperly used or not. If a committee of the League of Nations says that in their opinion a certain preparation of drug cannot be improperly used, then a relaxation is allowed upon the Schedule under this Bill. I hope, therefore, that the House will now agree to the passage of this Bill, and allow it to become an Act.

Mr. B. PETO: I am sure the House will be very much indebted to the hon. Member for the explanation which he has given. But it was certainly necessary, because he told us first of all that this Bill was a legacy of hon Members opposite, and that, to some of us, is "damning it with faint praise." Apart from that, and I am quite sure that if Lord Banbury were in this House to-day he would not let this Bill go through as easily as I shall. First of all, the legislation apparently, instead of being passed in this House, was passed in Geneva.. The Under-Secretary to the Home Office pointed out that the Bill could be entirely altered by a resolution of the League of Nations. That seems to me to introduce a rather dangerous precedent into our legislation, to pass a Bill in this House the terms of which can be entirely altered without any Motion in this House whatever. With that small and inadequate protest I do not wish further to detain the House, but I really should have liked to hear what some of the old maintainers of the constitutional rights of this House would have had to say about a Bill of this character.

Sir J. NALL: I only want to ask the Under-Secretary a question. He fold the House that this Bill was necessary in order to ratify an international Convention. Can he assure the House that the other nations who are parties to the Convention are definitely, genuinely going to ratify, or are they only likely to ratify in a manner which is sometimes adopted so that after the ratification the matter is not enforced?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should like to reply to that, with the leave of the
House. I understand that all the Powers which were represented are signing the Convention. Therefore I think in that case the Parliaments of the different countries will ratify.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.

Resolved:
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section. 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Langley Mill and Heanor Gas Light and Coke Company, Limited, which was presented on the 15th July and published, be approved."—[Sir Burton Chadwick.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Great Yarmouth Gas Company, which was presented on the 15th July and published, be approved."—[Sir Burton Chadwick.]

Mr. NEVILLE: I beg to move, in line 4, at the end to add the words,
subject to the omission of Section 7 (1) B, and Schedule I, Part II.
I represent here constituents of mine who live in an area immediately adjoining Great Yarmouth, called Caister, which is, of course, a country village adjoining a town, and I have been asked by my constituents to oppose only two sections of this Order, this otherwise entirely harmless Gas Order. The Sections are Section 7 (1, b), and Schedule 1, Part 2, which refer to a site for a gas works. Can I just for a moment detain the House by stating the position of affairs? The village of Caister is one of the oldest villages, I take it, in my constituency. It was originally started at the southern end of a line of fortifications which were put up by the Romans to protect a peculiarly defenceless part of the coast of England, and, if I may say so, local tradition says it was one place where the German fleet was expected to land if it made any attack at all. In mediaeval times there was a large natural estuary which extended from Caister, on the one side, to a place called
Burgh Saint Peter. On the other side it was about seven miles wide, and the whole of the commerce of Norwich, which in the time of Edward IV was the second largest town of England, used it. This little village has had a continuous history, which many a town much bigger would be glad to have had, right from the beginning, 1,600 years ago, and in the Middle Ages there was a castle, which remains to-day. I daresay many of my friends would like to know who was the gentleman who erected that castle, It was the home, if not the possession, of the man who in an amorous letter to two married ladies, describes himself in "The Merry Wives of Windsor" as
Your own true knight, by day or night,
Or in any light, with all his might,
For thee to fight,
Jack Falstaff.
I do not want to weary the House, but Caister is now more or less an old-world fishing village. It is famous all round for the gallantry of its lifeboat, and for the many seamen that it sends every year into the Navy. This little village, as I say, at the present time is a mile and a-half north of Yarmouth. There has been put up quite a collection of lodging houses, villas, bungalows and houses of that sort. It is an incipient health resort.
It is proposed to put up a gas holder. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] I do not say shame. I quite admit it is necessary to have gas, but I say that you can erect this at some distance away, and not quite close to schools, houses and churches. It is to be near a school. What I am asking the House to do is to allow the Yarmouth Gas Company to put this gas holder at some distance away. I quite admit that they might be picturesque objects. I quite admit, I have admitted it in the House, that these gas-holders are modelled upon the Temple of Vesta in the Forum at Rome. There is no prejudice against this class of building in Rome. All I am asking the House in this matter is to take out Section 7 1 (B) and Schedule 1, Part I, of the Order. I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade is likely to reply. He and I have discussed this matter, and I must say that he has shown great fairness and courtesy, and that also applies to others with whom I have come
in contact in connection with this Order. My constituents, I admit, have come very late into the field in their opposition to this particular proposal, and that is why they are making this appeal to the House. I ask the House to keep out the Sections I have suggested, or to modify the Order in such a way, that the site of this building should be moved, and so that the village should be saved from having a gasholder in close proximity to schools or houses.

Mr. CHRISTIE: I should like to support the appeal that has been made by my hon. Friend. I cannot expect to achieve the picturesque language in which he has indulged, but I put it to the House that some of us think that this small township should have this building moved to an equally suitable site, where it will not be objectionable to the place.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): This is an Order to authorise the Great Yarmouth Gas Company to extend their limits of supply, and to construct a gas-holder on a site at Caister belonging to the company. The gasholder is required for the purpose of affording a supply of gas at a proper pressure in Caister and the outlying parts of the new area of supply. As the hon. Member has said, the matter has been thoroughly examined into and thrashed out. Notices of the application were duly given in accordance with the Gas Regulation Act. Out of the 122 persons upon whom notice was served, objections were received from only seven persons. One of these was from a gentleman who said, to place a gas-holder on the site suggested would be an object that would attract an enemy, and be bombed by an enemy, and for that reason he objected to it. No objections were lodged by the local authority, by any person responsible for the development of building land, or for the management of the school in the vicinity of the new site. A local inspection of the site was made by an officer of the Department, at which the objections were fully explained and discussed. In view of all this I am afraid that I really cannot accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

Sir J. NALL: I do not want to keep the House, but the object of our Parlia-
mentary procedure is, when a matter of this kind comes up, to ensure that where a comparatively small township is concerned it should be heard. Representations should be made in the early stages of the matter, but then, small townships are not, perhaps, sometimes sufficiently vocal, when their interests, it may be, are likely to be prejudiced. It is not until the later stages that local opinion awakens to what is being done. There is no more desirable thing in any township, perhaps, than the erection of gasworks or a gas-holder, but if such an erection is to be put up where there are houses, and particularly where there are public buildings such as schools and churches, we might give the matter some further consideration. I do not know the place. I have never been there in my life, but my hon. Friend the Member for Eastern Norfolk (Mr. Neville) has just shown me the map and explained exactly what has happened. Here is a small township outside a seaside town, close to the sea. It is only a little village, but it is right up against dwellings and public buildings that this emblem of modern development is to be erected, quite obviously to the prejudice of those who live in the vicinity. I think it would be a pity to divide the House, so I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should withdraw this Motion to-night—seeing it is mute an important point—and the matter can be raised again after, it may be, some alteration has been made. If my hon. Friend does not feel disposed to do that: I think this is one of those instances in which the House ought to protect small localities, and I ask the House to divide against this Order.

Major CRAWFURD: I would like to add one word of appeal to the hon. Gentleman to respond to the request which has been made to him. I think the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Neville) made out a very strong ease indeed, and as a Member of a small minority I am bound to say that I enter into the feelings of the people of this-place who are going to have their locality disfigured by this monstrous thing.

Vice-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL: I wish to add my word in support of the appeal which has been made to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to reconsider his decision. I will not delay the House, because I understand that he is ready to do so.

Sir B. CHADWICK: I see what the feeling of the House is, and I am going to make this suggestion to my hon. Friend, that he should allow this Order to go through on the condition that if within three months those interested, either the local authority or anybody else, are able to provide a site which will be
a suitable—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] I would be willing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—to delay the operation of this Order pending such examination. If he would be willing to agree to that I think it is rather a reasonable way out.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I have no objection to this being adjourned for the gas company to reconsider the position and to select a further site. I feel that the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Neville) has made out a very strong ease.

Sir J. NALL: On a point of Order. Are we not in this difficulty, that if this Order is passed to-night it becomes statutory in its authority, and that no amount of persuasion from my hon. Friend could prevent the party concerned putting into operation the powers given in this Order?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order for the Chair to decide. That is a question which should be addressed to the Minister.

Colonel GRETTON: May I express the hope that the Minister will postpone this Order? Our procedure is intended to deal with cases of the kind which have come before us to-night. Authorities embark on costly Parliamentary proceedings in support of their claims to undertake various works in the locality, and it is an expensive business for small people to enter opposition to them, and here we have a procedure which enables us to protect these little people and to have their grievances investigated. Surely this work could be carried through in a way which would not damage the amenities of Caister. I urge the Minister to look into the matter a little more closely, and hold the Order up pending a report on the whole proceedings.

Sir HARRY FOSTER: May we have an answer from the Minister on the point of order that was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall)?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I made a suggestion with the object of meeting the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Neville), which I thought would give an opportunity for some arrangement to be come to. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I do not wish to endanger the whole position for the gas company. I see what the feeling of the House is, and I am rather surprised at it, but there it is. Rather than endanger the enterprise of the gas company I think it would be better to postpone the Order.

Debate adjourned accordingly; to be resumed To-morrow.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Devizes, which was presented on the 15th July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the urban district council of Great Driffield. which was presented on the 15th July and published, be approved."—[Sir B. Chadwick.]

Orders of the Day — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.

Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Lords Amendments to the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill be considered forthwith."—[Mr. Neville Chamberlain.]

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: Some little interval has elapsed since this Bill went to another place, and I think we ought to enter a formal protest against the Lords Amendments being considered without our having any knowledge of the details of them. I realise that on many occasions towards the end things have to be rushed, and in view of the Adjournment perhaps there is not much time, but having regard to the period that has elapsed since the Bill left this House, I feel we should have Been In a much better condition to consider the Amendments if we had had them on the Order Paper even this morning, without asking for any further notice than that. Though
the Amendments may not be of substantial importance, it may be that there are some that are of real importance, and we should prefer to have them before us.

Mr. T. THOMSON: While joining in the protest that has been made by the hon. Member for Colne and Nelson (Mr. Greenwood), I would like to ask a question as to one of the Amendments that was moved in the House of Lords and, I understand, withdrawn on the understanding that a Committee was to be appointed. That was the Amendment, which was also moved in this House, dealing with the rights of pensioners who emigrate to other parts of the Empire. That Amendment, when it was moved from these benches, was received with some scorn and contempt by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I would like to know what fate that Amendment met in the other House, and what is the Government's action with regard to the future of that Amendment?

Mr. SPEAKER: I observe that that is an Amendment which the Lords rejected or, at any rate, did not pass.

Colonel GRETTON: I agree that it is eminently desirable that we should have the Lords Amendments printed. If they raise matters of substance or controversy the House should have the opportunity of seeing them before they are asked to consider and decide upon them. This is not the same thing as examining the Bill in connection with its Clauses, and these Amendments may be raising questions of far-reaching importance and some difficulty. I hope the Minister of Health will be able to assure us that these Amendments are not of a substantial character, and if they are, I trust he will be able to postpone the discussion until the Amendments have been printed.

Mr. J. JONES: We have often been lectured about constitutionalism and the proper way to pursue in regard to legislation. I want to make a protest at the way this business is being done, because the House of Commons is not the foot-servant of the House of Lords. In matters of legislation we are supposed to be the governing authority. Now we are being asked to accept Amendments about which we know nothing, and even
the Minister of Health, in moving the acceptance of the Lords Amendments, has not explained them.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I have simply moved that they be considered forthwith.

Mr. JONES: I want them considered fifth-with. Some of us are interested in one question relating to old age pensioners who may go across the seas to their children in the Colonies. In my own constituency such cases have been brought to my notice whore old people have gone to see their sons and daughters abroad, and in a case of that kind the Government seem to sub-let their responsibility.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not one of the Lords Amendments.

Mr. JONES: We have not had any chance of discussing these matters, and the House of Commons ought to know what they are going to vote about, and if they do not know they ought not to be here.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not complain of the protest which has been made, but hon. Members will realise that the reason why the Amendments have not appeared on the Paper is because of pressure on our time. That, however, would not be a sufficient excuse if, in point of fact, any of these Amendments were of substantial importance or raised any new feature. As a matter of fact, all the Amendments I shall ask the House to agree to are either of a drafting character or Amendments consequential upon Amendments carried in this House in other parts of the Bill. That is really the whole sum and substance of these Amendments, and I hope the House will consent to consider them.

Miss WILKINSON: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that opinions may differ very considerably as to what are or are not substantial Amendments. Many of us remember that in the discussions in this House certain matters of which the Minister of Health thought very lightly were considered of supreme importance on these benches. I suggest that those who have taken the keenest interest in this Bill feel that we ought to have a chance of going through these Amendments very carefully before they are brought before
the House in this way. There are two days remaining, and we ask the Tight hon. Gentleman to take other business now, and let us consider these Amendments even at a very late hour to-morrow or on Friday after the other business has been disposed of.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I quite share the protest which has been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton). It is very easy for the Minister of Health to come along and say that these are not important matters, but there is a question of principle involved. The curtailment of the privileges of the House of Commons sometimes comes im-

perceptibly and by degrees, and if we are going to give way, even on a small matter, we may be asked to give way on more important matters. Only this evening we heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade suggest that it was too late to alter an Order which was being brought forward in the House of Commons. I hope that those who have made this protest will refuse to pass these Amendments until we are in a position to see what we are talking about.

Question put, "That the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith."

The House divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 70.

Division No. 354.]
AYES.
[10.1 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fielden, E. B.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Albery, Irving James
Fleming, D. P.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Ford, P. J.
Merriman, F. B.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Atkinson, C.
Gates, Percy
Moore-Brabazon Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Murchison, C. K.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Goff, Sir Park
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Grace, John
Neville, R. J.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Betterton, Henry B.
Gretton, Colonel John
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Nuttall, Ellis


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Oakley, T.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastb'rne)
Oman, Sir. Charles William C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hanbury, C.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Pennefather, Sir John


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Perring, William George


Burman, J. B.
Haslam, Henry C.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hawke, John Anthony
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Campbell, E. T.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Pilcher, G.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Preston, William


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Radford, E. A.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Raine, W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Ramsden, E.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hilton, Cecil
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hohler, sir Gerald Fitzroy
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington


Christie, J. A.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Remer, J. R.


Clayton, G. C.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Homan, C. W. J.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Couper, J. B.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rye, F. G.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cowan Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hurd, Percy A.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jacob, A. E.
Shaw, Lt.-Col A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jephcott, A. R.
Skelton, A. N.


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Kennedy, T.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Smithers, Waldron


Dawson, sir Philip
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Dixey, A. C.
Looker, Herbert William
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lougher, L.
Storry Deans, R.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Lumley, L. R.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Elveden, Viscount
Mac Andrew, Charles Glen
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


England, Colonel A.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Everard, W. Lindsay
McLean, Major A.
Templeton, W. P.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen South)


Tinne, J. A.
Watts, Dr. T.
Womersley, W. J.


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Varley, Frank B.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Wallace, Captain D. E.
Wilson, Sir Charles H.(Leeds, Centrl.)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Litchfield)



Warrender, Sir Victor
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Wise, Sir Fredric
Captain Margesson and Captain Douglas Hacking.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Scrymgeour, E.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scurr, John


Ammon, Charles George
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sexton, James


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barr, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromley, J
Kirkwood, D.
Smillie, Robert


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lansbury, George
Stamford, T. w.


Charleton, H. C.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
March, S.
Sutton, J. E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Maxton, James
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Connolly, M.
Montague, Frederick
Tinker, John Joseph


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Morris, R. H.
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Murnin, H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Gosling, Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Greenall, T.
Paling, W.
Wiggins, William Martin


Groves, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Purcell, A. A.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Hayes, John Henry
Ritson, J.
Wright, W.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)



Hirst, G. H.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Dalton and Major Crawfurd.


Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 3.—(Widows' pensions.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 3, line 19, leave out from "cease" to the end of line 21.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is my duty to call the attention of the House to this and the next Amendment, which run together, and rise a question of privilege. Their effect may be to enable an additional allowance to be paid under conditions not existing originally, as the Bill left this House. I must confess to the House that it is a very fine point, but it is my duty to draw attention to anything in the case of which there is the slightest possibility of the privileges of the House being infringed. If the House except this Amendment, a special entry will be made in the Journals.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
On the question of privilege, may I say that these two Amendments taken together do not in fact give power to make any allowance that is not already provided for by the Bill? During the passage of the Bill through this House, a concession was made continuing the
allowance for children, while they were at school, up to the age of 16, but there was no provision making it quite clear that such an allowance would not be affected should the widow's pension cease. These two Amendments are simply to make it quite clear that, in a case where a widow's pension ceases, not by reason of her death, or by reason of the fact that she has re-married, but by reason of the fact that her child has already reached the age of 14, then, if that child be still at school, the fact that she has ceased to receive her pension shall not affect the allowance paid to the child. That is entirely carrying out the intention of the Bill, and, as I have said, this is really only a drafting Amendment, in order that there may be no possible doubt.

Lords Amendment:

In page 3, line 24, at the end insert:
Provided that if for any reason other than the death of the widow, the widow's pension ceases to be payable before the expiration of the time during which an additional allowance is payable, such cessor shall not affect the continuance of the additional allowance.

Agreed to.

Miss WILKINSON: Could I raise a point of Order? It is utterly impossible for us to take in this long Amendment as it has been read, without one word of explanation.

Mr. SPEAKER: We have disposed of that point. We cannot now go back to it.

CLAUSE 13.—(Voluntary contributors.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 12, line 34, after "ceases," insert "or has ceased."

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I think the hon. Lady must have understood that the two Amendments went together, and my explanation covered the last Amendment. If she will apply her - mind, she will not have any difficulty in understanding what is meant. The Clause we are dealing with now is Clause 13, Sub-section (3) of which says:
Where an exempt person ceases to be employed within the meaning of the Insurance Act, or where a person employed in an excepted employment ceases to be so employed, he may, in the circumstances and subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, become a voluntary contributor under the Insurance Act.
That applies only where a person ceases to be employed, that is after the commencement of this Act, but in Clause 15 (5) we have the actual conditions put down under which this exempt person may become a voluntary contributor, and the words are:
Where a person …. ceases or has before the commencement of this Act ceased.
In Clause 14 the same thing occurs.
Where an exempt person ceases or has before the commencement of this Act ceased.
All we are doing now in Clause 13, which is a Clause referring us to the two following Clauses, is to make the wording of the Clause agree with the wording in Clauses 14 and 15 by putting in the words "has ceased," so that it applies to persons who have ceased before the commencement of the Act as well as after.

Subsequent Lords Amendments down to page 20, line 21, agreed to.

CLAUSE 19.—(Pensions of widows and orphans of men over 70 at commencement of Act.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 20, line 21, after "that" insert
(a) if no widow's pension is payable by reason of there being no child under the age of fourteen, but there is a child over the age of fourteen in respect of whom an additional allowance would be payable if the widow were entitled to a widow's pension, an additional allowance shall be payable in respect of that child; and
(b)

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment will in some cases make possible an allowance not permissible under the Bill as it left this House, and therefore I call the attention of the House to it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I do not dispute what you, Sir, have said in regard to this Clause, but I think when the House hears exactly what it means they will agree that this is a case where they might properly waive their privilege. Clause 18, which deals with widows' and orphans' pensions when the husband or parent dies before the commencement of the Act, contains a paragraph (c) to which a manuscript Amendment was moved in Committee and was carried out. A concession was made. That manuscript Amendment is the same as the one that is now inserted and made to apply to widows of men who are already over 70 at the commencement of the Act. The case is this. I will take Section 18 first. A widow who is a widow before the commencement of the Act and has a child over the age of 14 at school would not be entitled to a pension for herself, but we have agreed that an allowance should be payable in respect of the child, although the mother is not entitled. The allowance is kept on while the child is at school. I do not know whether there will be many similar cases occurring in connection with widows of men over 70 at the commencement of the Act, but there may be such cases, and the Amendment which I am now asking the House to agree with is an Amendment which makes a similar provision if such a case as that should occur.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is a further Amendment on page 30, line 40.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that Amendment was not made.

Orders of the Day — POOR LAW RELIEF.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." —[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Mr. J. JONES: I am sorry to trouble the House, but I should like to raise a question of some importance regarding my constituency. I would ask the Minister of Health if he can give us any information regarding the situation which is going to arise in view of the fact that the House will adjourn at the end of this week. I am speaking for a district which has the largest Poor Law area in Great Britain, where we are paying out every week £20,000 to unemployed men, their wives and families. We have borrowed up to the present time, through the slump that has taken place in trade. £1,800,000, on a flat rate of interest at (5 per cent. In addition to that, we have the ordinary responsibilities which a Poor Law authority has to meet. We are now nearly at the end of our tether.
I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he helped us many years ago in heading deputations to the Presidents of the Local Government Board, and to his predecessors at the Ministry of Health, regarding the necessitous Poor Law areas. We in West Ham at the present time have levied a rate of 9s. in the pound for Poor Law purposes alone. Some of us, it will be admitted, have done our best to try to bring about a settlement of the dispute that has taken place between the guardians and the Government in this matter. We are not asking for money granted to us by the Government. We wish that we could get the £2,500,000 that Liverpool and Birkenhead have got. We do not object to Liverpool and Birkenhead petting that money, but what we want to know is, how are we going to be placed at the end of next month, when, practically, our financial resources will be exhausted, and we cannot find the necessary relief for the people who are coming before our relief committees in the various districts of the union?
We have £20,000 a week to pay out, and we have now got to the position that, practically speaking, we shall have no money at the end of September. By deputations to the Ministry we have been able to get them to come down to certain conditions, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the great charge that is made against the people who represent the poor in that part of East London is that our scale of relief is too high. What is that scale? A man and his wife and six children can get from us 59s. per week. Does any hon. Member suggest that 59s. per week in London is too much for that family to exist on, never mind to live on?
We are therefore in this position, that because the representatives of the public are not prepared to accept the conditions laid down by the Minister at the end of September we shall be bankrupt. Then the question of administration comes in. Who is going to administer the law? What will happen to the thousands of people who will be on their beam ends with nothing facing them but starvation? The Poor Law cannot maintain them. We have got to the breaking position. What suggestion can the right hon. Gentleman make? Will he stand by the declaration made that we can have nothing more than has already been offered? Is there any way out of the difficulty? We have done our best. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give us some hope that this difficulty will be got over and that we shall be able to carry on? We know what the troubles are. The interest alone which we are paying on the money which we have been compelled to borrow is more than our rate was in 1913 for the relief of the poor. We cannot go on with that for ever. To-morrow we may be faced with the stoppage of our overdraft at the bank. What suggestions can the right hon. Gentleman make to meet the situation, because it involves the biggest administrative authority in connection with the Poor Law of Great Britain?

Mr. GROVES: Being a colleague of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) in this trouble I must associate myself with his appeal to the Minister of Health to do what is necessary in West Ham, but I am sure that my colleague will see the psychology of the
position. I have put down a Private Notice question for to-morrow, and Mr. Speaker has agreed that it would be answered to-morrow. I am sure that the Minister of Health has not the information with him now, but I understand that to-morrow he is going to deal with the matter. If that is not the case I would like to continue the appeal to the Minister, but if he is going to deal with it to-morrow I think that that will probably be the best occasion.

Mr. JONES: You will not be able to discuss it to-morrow.

Mr. SPEAKER: Now that the matter has been raised, the hon. Member had better take advantage of his present opportunity.

Mr. GROVES: Then in a few words may I say that we find ourselves in a very perilous position in West Ham? This results from the fact that we have 61,000 people, including the children, depending on the Poor Law for sustenance. On an average there are 27,000 cases. There is no use in getting excited and talking about Conservatives and Socialists. What we have to endeavour to do in this House is to preserve the peace and get the people their food. Therefore we who represent the area did what we could in making overtures to the Minister to arrive at a settlement. I think that the Minister met us in a perfectly fair spirit and conceded certain of the points which we put to him. We want peace in our borough, and we ask that our appeal should be seriously considered. The right hon. Gentleman knows that West Ham's prosperity depends on the docks. As a result of the War and the breakdown of international trade, men who in the past were loading or unloading ships are now not only out of work, but have exhausted their benefit at the Employment Exchanges, and have been thrown on the mercy of the Poor Law. One of the most heart-rending spectacles is the degradation of men and women who in the past were able to maintain themselves, and are now compelled to depend on Poor Law relief. None the less our first duty as Members of this House, or as Ministers, is in a decent way to come to the succors of these men and women and children.
We owe the Government £1,250,000. The West Ham Union has paid back
£328,000, and we are still doing our best to meet the financial charges imposed upon us. It is an extremely difficult position. The guardians have met and, having considered the offer of the Minister, they have declined it. The last speaker referred to the maximum scale of relief for a man, woman and six children as 59s. per week. The Minister has suggested that in order to obtain loans from the Government the scale of relief should be reduced from a maximum of 59s. to 55s. That difference would save only £5,000 a year, or £5,000 on the last loan. Another point is that to-day, when the income exceeds 40s., the guardians take into consideration 50 per cent., and the Minister suggests 75 per cent. The four Members for West Ham saw the Minister, and negotiated. One of my colleagues suggested a bridge over which both sides could walk. The guardians cannot see their way to accept the suggestion of the Minister, and the Minister cannot accept the position of the guardians. That is where we stand. There is a dispute. Do not let us talk about either side giving way. If the Minister can suggest to us some means whereby we can get over the difficulty, the administration of relief would go on and peace would prevail. That is what we want. We are not using this question for mere propaganda in order to have civil strife. We want people to get their bread, and we want peace. I appeal to the Minister to visualise the position in West Ham, and to do what he can to ease the burden on the shoulders of the guardians.

Mr. STORRY DEANS: I sympathise with any hon. Member who represents a necessitous area, though I do not pretend to go as far as to suggest that the Minister of Health should accept the proposals of boards of guardians, who desire to accord recipients of out-door relief, sums vastly in excess of those usually given in other areas. I also represent a necessitous area, and our case in Sheffield is this, that we became a necessitous area by serving the country. During the War, when a great many of our people were at the front, it was necessary for the country that the Sheffield munition industries should be kept going at high speed and full pressure, and in order that this might be done, there were brought into the Sheffield area between 40,000 and 50,000
people. When there was no longer the necessity for munitions, the people who had been brought into Sheffield as munition workers remained there. The survivors of the men who had gone to the front came back, and we find ourselves confronted with what is, in effect, a surplus population which does not really belong to us of 24,000 or 25,000. These 24,000 or 25,000 men workers just about represent unemployment in Sheffield, the unemployment figures being something like 21,000.
Sheffield is in a bad way as far as its trade, its debt, and its rates are concerned. We do not pretend to go into the vast figure of £1,250,000 at which the plutocrats of West Ham have arrived. We are content with a modest £800,000 or thereabouts. The guardians, quite apart from the city council, are in debt to the tune of very nearly that sum. I ask the Minister can he give no relief in a special case of this kind? This is not merely a matter of bad trade. Trade would have to be not merely good, but abundantly good, to enable Sheffield to absorb into its industries this surplus population, which came into the area, not for the benefit of Sheffield trade as such, but for the benefit of the country and for the manufacture of munitions in a time of stress. I suggest that this is a case for special consideration. We know the stereotyped answer of the Department is "We cannot do more for you than for Bournemouth or any other place; we cannot do more for one municipality than for another." Yet I respectfully suggest that, to use a hackneyed expression, circumstances alter cases, and that in peculiar circumstances peculiar remedies should be applied. I suggest to the Minister that Sheffield, as a necessitous area, has done everything it can to administer its funds economically, and it has not transgressed the scale of relief which meets with the approval of the Ministry. It has done none of these things. The best business men in Sheffield have given to its administration their best time, attention and brains. They have been unable to prevent the city running into debt to an enormous extent, and I suggest that, as this necessity has arisen from a national cause, it is the duty of the nation through
the Ministry of Health to come to our relief.

Major CRAWFURD: I want to add one or two words to what has been said by hon. Members above the Gangway on this side who represent areas contained in the district of the West Ham Board of Guardians. I regret rather that the discussion has been diverted to other parts of the country, and I want to pre-face what I have to say by saying at once that I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has had and notice, or what notice he has had, that this question will be raised. If he has not had notice, then, of course, I do not desire that he should say things that he is not prepared to say, or give a judgment at which he has not arrived after mature consideration. With regard to what has been said by the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Storry Deans), I would like to say that the conditions which he has outlined as being peculiar to Sheffield are not peculiar to Sheffield at all, but that every division in the East End of London, I think I am right in saying, and certainly the division of Walthamstow which I represent, had a large surplus population drawn there by the War, doing very often skilled, highly necessary work, and I believe that that is true of almost every division you can name in the East End of London.
There was an enormous increase in the population, largely engaged in doing munition work, and when the hon. Member says that the people who are suffering in his area are suffering because they served the nation, may I point out that areas in London, particularly in the area represented by the hon. Member who raised this topic, not only served, but they suffered? In one case, I think, upwards of 200 of them were killed, serving their country, and therefore, though one does not wish to draw invidious comparisons between one part of the country and another, I do say that the people in the East End of London yield to nobody in the service which they rendered to the nation during the War. Also, I think I should be right in saying that, in comparison with any other area you choose to mention, the amount of distress in that area is largely due to the conditions and circumstances that arose out of the War and of the work which was then done.
The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) drew particular attention to the dispute, which is a matter of common knowledge, between the West Ham Board of Guardians and the Department of the right hon. Gentleman. It is a deplorable thing, from whatever angle you view it, that a great public body administering a great public service should for any reason find itself in a dispute with the Department of the Government which is concerned with its work, and, of course, it is a grave matter when that dispute arrives at the point, which I believe has been reached, where apparently you get absolute deadlock. We should be very glad indeed if the right hon. Gentleman —perhaps it is difficult for him to-night to indicate anything—could say that the matter is still being considered, and that there are hopes of that deadlock being removed and measures taken, by agreement, between the two bodies to carry out the ordinary work of relief. There is, in my view, at any rate, something even more important at this moment. Here we are, in two days, going to separate for some months, and I believe I am right in saying that many weeks before this House is due to meet again the point of deadlock will have been reached.
When that point is reached, so far as I am concerned, so far as the people whom I represent, whose interests I have at heart are concerned, the matter ceases to be one as between the West Ham Board of Guardians and the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and it becomes one of how so many thousands and tens of thousands are going to receive their food, shelter and clothing during the winter. And, if possible, I would like the right hon. Gentleman to say if he will, and if he can, that there is still some avenue of approach open, that there is still some possibility of conference and agreement. If he cannot do that, I would like him to give the House an assurance that this vast area, which contains an enormous amount of poverty —and, like all hon. Members, I have evidence of it every week, every day, and almost every hour of my life—that whatever may happen to the particular dispute, the interests of those people will not suffer, and that arrangements, in any case, will be made to see that there is not any unnecessary increase in poverty,
want and suffering in those areas until this House meets again.

Mr. SCURR: As chairman of a board of guardians, quite close to that of the hon. Member who has spoken, I also want to join in the appeal which has been made to the Minister of Health, but I rise, not for the purpose of dealing with the particular point at issue between the West Ham Board of Guardians and the Ministry, but to raise what, I think, is really the fundamental question which ought to be raised on this occasion, and on occasions when there are disputes with authorities of this kind. When sometimes attention is drawn to the fact that the amount of the relief given has not been sufficient, and the attention of the Minister of Health is drawn to that point, he immediately replies, quite correctly, that it is within the discretion of the board of guardians to decide that question, and that is an important point laid down by the law of the land. We, who are elected as guardians to the poor, have the responsibility of giving adequate relief to those persons who are destitute, and, further than that, if the board itself refuses to give relief in a particular case, there is a statutory obligation upon the relieving officer, that if the person is destitute, he has to give relief. Now we have the Minister of Health coining along and trying to exercise a discretion, and laying down the law as to the amount of relief to be given by a board of guardians, in order to impose a policy which he may consider to be wise, but which the electors of these various areas have not considered to be wise at all.
How can the Minister of Health take this responsibility upon his own shoulders, when the responsibility has already been placed by Parliament upon the shoulders of boards of guardians? This is an undue interference with local authorities. It is an interference which is creeping and growing all the way through. It is being exercised now by the Minister, on one hand, and sometimes by the auditor, on the other, all the time an attempt being made on the part of the central authorities to destroy our local government, which I consider is absolutely wrong and absolutely against everything which is necessary for the benefit of this community. I trust the Minister of Health, who is a member of the Constitutional
party, will be a Constitutionalist, and will allow the electors to have their say in the way they have expressed it on more than one occasion, and will gracefully surrender, recognising that the local people know what is required, and that he has no power really, and is usurping power in acting in the way he is doing.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not going to say whether the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) ought to be protected against my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Storry Deans) taking advantage of his absence to raise the question of necessitous areas. It is certainly touching on ground which has been specially covered by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough. The suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend is that Sheffield should receive a special grant from the Exchequer, not to be given to any other area in the country, on the ground that the circumstances are quite exceptional and peculiar. I am afraid I cannot give way to that. I am quite certain that if some such grant were made every hon. Member in this House would find that in his constituency also there was a situation that ought to receive similar treatment. The difficulty about the necessitous areas—I do not deny that there is a good deal to be said on behalf of them— is that nobody up to the present has been able to find any scheme or any formula which will work out fairly in practice as between one area and another. It is not so long ago that a deputation was received by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and he promised that he would set up a Departmental Committee that should carefully examine the various suggestions that have been made for dealing with this subject. As that promise has been made, that is as far as I am able to go.
I turn to the other matter that has been raised, and as to which I must say that I did not know until I came and sat on this bench one and a-half hours ago that it was going to be raised.

Mr. LANSBURY: We did send word.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am only explaining, not complaining. I have not the details here with me and I should not like to commit myself. Of course, I know the facts of the case. The hon.
Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) has already given me notice of a Private Notice question for to-morrow and I have prepared a reply, and I think I am quite sufficiently armed with information to be able to give an answer to the question that has been put to me. Before I come to that, I must refer to the last speech to which we have listened. The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) complained that I have acted unconstitutionally because I am declining to allow money not raised by the rates in the area of the Union, but coming from the Public Exchequer, to be used exactly how a board of guardians pleases. It is quite true that, as long as guardians are getting money from the ratepayers, they are the rating authority, and I have no legal power to interfere with them. That is perfectly true, and I have observed always that constitutional position. What is happening here? They come and ask me to lend them money. I have to consider what prospect there will be of getting it back again. Certainly, I put it this way: that the more extravagant they are and the more they go on piling up the debt, the less is the likelihood that I ever will get it back. Therefore, I think it is my duty, as a constitutionalist and as the trustee for the taxpayers of the country, to see that if money is lent, it shall be lent in a way which will insure that it shall be expended in a reasonable manner. That is the constitutional position.
With regard to the facts of this particular case, I have endeavoured to deal with it in such a way as to give every possible opportunity to the guardians of the West Ham Union to come forward and to conform to the very moderate restrictions which it was thought proper to place upon their expenditure of further loans. I have endeavoured to make it quite possible for them to effect what they wanted. I gladly accepted the good offices of the hon. Members for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne) and Silvertown who came to see me in the hope of finding some compromise by which we could settle this matter peaceably. What happened? Certain conditions have been arranged by the Goschen Committee, precedent to the making of a further loan to the board of guardians. The guardians had these conditions placed before them, but they
flatly refused to accept them. I will not say what else was said, because it might be thought I had a prejudice in the matter. Did they make any advance whatever? After talking the matter over with me I asked the hon. Members to whom I have referred to go and see the Goschen Committee themselves. They did so, and by their eloquence they persuaded the Goschen Committee to abate some of the conditions. When these conditions were placed before the board of guardians they absolutely refused to budge from the attitude they had taken up. I think they are entirely unreasonable. What do hon. Members say here? "Well, now, if this board of guardians will not give way, surely you might give way yourself."

Mr. JONES: On a point of Order. I do not want to interrupt my right hon. Friend at this late hour, but I would like to ask if he will lay down now, definitely, what is the minimum of these conditions, so that we may be able to tell the people in West Ham, apart from the Board of Guardians.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid the hon. Member has robbed me of one of
the minutes I was intending to devote to giving a complete answer to what he has asked me. I say that would be an easy way, if I were simply to lie down, "to surrender," I think was the phrase used by one of the hon. Members opposite. If I were to surrender and accept the position of the board of guardians, that would be an easy way, but that is not my way. I say at once to the hon. Member that I am not going to amend those conditions in any particular whatever. That is quite clear and plain. I am asked, what is going to be the position when they come to the end of their money? I say the guardians will have taken a very grave responsibility upon their shoulders if they are going to refuse to function, because they have only got to accept those conditions, which hon. Members thought reasonable enough to go and ask them to accept—they have only got to accept those conditions, and they can have the loan to-morrow.

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute before Eleven o'clock.